Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Sleep experts tend to agree with U.S. lawmakers about getting rid of the twice-per-year time shift, with one exception: They typically call for standard time rather than daylight saving time.

After the Senate voted unanimously on March 15 to make daylight saving time permanent, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine issued a statement that urged caution about adopting a fixed, year-round time with potential health risks.

“We do applaud stopping the switching during the course of the year and settling on a permanent time,” Jocelyn Cheng, MD, a member of the association’s public safety committee, told The Washington Post.

But “standard time, for so many scientific and circadian rationales and public health safety reasons, should really be what the permanent time is set to,” she said.

Now it’s up to the House of Representatives to decide what to do next. The legislation, which would take effect in 2023, must be passed by the House and signed by President Joe Biden before becoming a law.

Legislators and health experts have debated the shift in recent years. In 2020, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine released a position statement in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine that recommended that the United States move to year-round standard time. Standard time is more aligned with humans’ circadian rhythms and natural light/dark cycles, the group wrote, and disrupting that rhythm has been linked to higher risks of heart disease, obesity, and depression.

At the same time, few studies have focused on the long-term effects of adopting daylight saving time. Most research has focused on the short-term risks of the seasonal shift, such as reduced sleep and increased car crashes, or circadian misalignment caused by other things. Some health experts have called for more research before deciding on a permanent time, the newspaper reported.

Still, the March 15 statement from sleep experts received support from more than 20 groups, including the National Safety Council, National Parent Teacher Association, and the World Sleep Society.

“We have all enjoyed those summer evenings with seemingly endless dusks,” David Neubauer, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

But daylight saving time “does not ‘save’ evening light at all, it simply steals it from the morning, when it is necessary to maintain our healthy biological rhythms,” he said.

Permanent daylight saving time would lead to more dark mornings, which opponents have said could be dangerous for kids going to school, adults driving to work, and overall sleep cycles.

“With daylight saving time, we are perpetually out of synchronization with our internal clocks, and we often achieve less nighttime sleep, both circumstances having negative health impacts,” Dr. Neubauer said. “Extra evening light suppresses the melatonin that should be preparing us for falling asleep. The later dawn during daylight saving time deprives our biological clocks of the critical light signal.”

The pros and cons of daylight saving time and standard time were debated during a hearing held by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee recently. Sleep experts argued in favor of standard time, while other industry experts argued for daylight saving time to reduce crime, save energy, and help businesses that benefit from more daylight in the evenings.

“Everybody advocates a permanent time, but this difference between 1 hour back or 1 hour forward is not so clear in everybody’s mind,” Dr. Cheng said. “I would like to see further debate and some due diligence done on these health consequences and public safety measures before anything else goes forward.”

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

Sleep experts tend to agree with U.S. lawmakers about getting rid of the twice-per-year time shift, with one exception: They typically call for standard time rather than daylight saving time.

After the Senate voted unanimously on March 15 to make daylight saving time permanent, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine issued a statement that urged caution about adopting a fixed, year-round time with potential health risks.

“We do applaud stopping the switching during the course of the year and settling on a permanent time,” Jocelyn Cheng, MD, a member of the association’s public safety committee, told The Washington Post.

But “standard time, for so many scientific and circadian rationales and public health safety reasons, should really be what the permanent time is set to,” she said.

Now it’s up to the House of Representatives to decide what to do next. The legislation, which would take effect in 2023, must be passed by the House and signed by President Joe Biden before becoming a law.

Legislators and health experts have debated the shift in recent years. In 2020, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine released a position statement in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine that recommended that the United States move to year-round standard time. Standard time is more aligned with humans’ circadian rhythms and natural light/dark cycles, the group wrote, and disrupting that rhythm has been linked to higher risks of heart disease, obesity, and depression.

At the same time, few studies have focused on the long-term effects of adopting daylight saving time. Most research has focused on the short-term risks of the seasonal shift, such as reduced sleep and increased car crashes, or circadian misalignment caused by other things. Some health experts have called for more research before deciding on a permanent time, the newspaper reported.

Still, the March 15 statement from sleep experts received support from more than 20 groups, including the National Safety Council, National Parent Teacher Association, and the World Sleep Society.

“We have all enjoyed those summer evenings with seemingly endless dusks,” David Neubauer, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

But daylight saving time “does not ‘save’ evening light at all, it simply steals it from the morning, when it is necessary to maintain our healthy biological rhythms,” he said.

Permanent daylight saving time would lead to more dark mornings, which opponents have said could be dangerous for kids going to school, adults driving to work, and overall sleep cycles.

“With daylight saving time, we are perpetually out of synchronization with our internal clocks, and we often achieve less nighttime sleep, both circumstances having negative health impacts,” Dr. Neubauer said. “Extra evening light suppresses the melatonin that should be preparing us for falling asleep. The later dawn during daylight saving time deprives our biological clocks of the critical light signal.”

The pros and cons of daylight saving time and standard time were debated during a hearing held by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee recently. Sleep experts argued in favor of standard time, while other industry experts argued for daylight saving time to reduce crime, save energy, and help businesses that benefit from more daylight in the evenings.

“Everybody advocates a permanent time, but this difference between 1 hour back or 1 hour forward is not so clear in everybody’s mind,” Dr. Cheng said. “I would like to see further debate and some due diligence done on these health consequences and public safety measures before anything else goes forward.”

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

Sleep experts tend to agree with U.S. lawmakers about getting rid of the twice-per-year time shift, with one exception: They typically call for standard time rather than daylight saving time.

After the Senate voted unanimously on March 15 to make daylight saving time permanent, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine issued a statement that urged caution about adopting a fixed, year-round time with potential health risks.

“We do applaud stopping the switching during the course of the year and settling on a permanent time,” Jocelyn Cheng, MD, a member of the association’s public safety committee, told The Washington Post.

But “standard time, for so many scientific and circadian rationales and public health safety reasons, should really be what the permanent time is set to,” she said.

Now it’s up to the House of Representatives to decide what to do next. The legislation, which would take effect in 2023, must be passed by the House and signed by President Joe Biden before becoming a law.

Legislators and health experts have debated the shift in recent years. In 2020, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine released a position statement in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine that recommended that the United States move to year-round standard time. Standard time is more aligned with humans’ circadian rhythms and natural light/dark cycles, the group wrote, and disrupting that rhythm has been linked to higher risks of heart disease, obesity, and depression.

At the same time, few studies have focused on the long-term effects of adopting daylight saving time. Most research has focused on the short-term risks of the seasonal shift, such as reduced sleep and increased car crashes, or circadian misalignment caused by other things. Some health experts have called for more research before deciding on a permanent time, the newspaper reported.

Still, the March 15 statement from sleep experts received support from more than 20 groups, including the National Safety Council, National Parent Teacher Association, and the World Sleep Society.

“We have all enjoyed those summer evenings with seemingly endless dusks,” David Neubauer, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

But daylight saving time “does not ‘save’ evening light at all, it simply steals it from the morning, when it is necessary to maintain our healthy biological rhythms,” he said.

Permanent daylight saving time would lead to more dark mornings, which opponents have said could be dangerous for kids going to school, adults driving to work, and overall sleep cycles.

“With daylight saving time, we are perpetually out of synchronization with our internal clocks, and we often achieve less nighttime sleep, both circumstances having negative health impacts,” Dr. Neubauer said. “Extra evening light suppresses the melatonin that should be preparing us for falling asleep. The later dawn during daylight saving time deprives our biological clocks of the critical light signal.”

The pros and cons of daylight saving time and standard time were debated during a hearing held by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee recently. Sleep experts argued in favor of standard time, while other industry experts argued for daylight saving time to reduce crime, save energy, and help businesses that benefit from more daylight in the evenings.

“Everybody advocates a permanent time, but this difference between 1 hour back or 1 hour forward is not so clear in everybody’s mind,” Dr. Cheng said. “I would like to see further debate and some due diligence done on these health consequences and public safety measures before anything else goes forward.”

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

A new surge in COVID-19 cases across Western Europe has led U.S. health officials to consider whether another pandemic wave will arrive soon, even as states and cities continue to lift restrictions amid low case numbers.

Infectious disease experts are watching BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that appears to be more transmissible than the original strain. BA.2 is fueling outbreaks across Europe and is growing in dominance across the United States.

“It’s picking up steam. It’s across at least 12 countries … from Finland to Greece,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute, told The Washington Post.

He has been following the surge and has posted recent charts of the outbreak on Twitter. Hospitalizations appear to be increasing in some places as well, he noted, despite the higher vaccination rates of many Western European countries.

“There’s no question there’s a significant wave there,” Dr. Topol said.

Germany recorded more than 260,000 new cases on March 15, according to the data tracker from the New York Times, but coronavirus restrictions are still being lifted this week. The U.K. is reporting more than 75,000 daily cases, and the Netherlands is reporting more than 60,000 daily cases, which are considered major numbers, compared to their population sizes. Meanwhile, France, Italy, and Switzerland are also reporting large increases in infections.

During the past 2 years, widespread outbreaks in Europe have been followed by similar surges in the U.S. weeks later. Most experts interviewed by the Post predicted that it’s likely to happen again.

In the United States, the BA.2 subvariant accounted for 23% of new COVID-19 cases for the week ending March 12, according to the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the original Omicron strain made up about 66% of cases. The BA.2 percentage is up from 13.7% of new cases for the week ending March 5, 7.1% the previous week, and 4.1% the week before that. In parts of the Northeast and New England, BA.2 makes up more than 38% of new cases.

At the same time, the 7 -day average of COVID-19 cases continues to drop in the United States, with about 31,000 daily cases currently, the New York Times data tracker shows. About 25,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, which has fallen 44% in the past 2 weeks, and about 1,200 deaths are being reported daily.

Several variables could affect the course of a future surge, the Post reported. Vaccination rates, coronavirus safety protocols, and access to antiviral medications could dictate how another wave unfolds across the country.

About 82% of the eligible U.S. population has received at least one vaccine dose, and 69% is fully vaccinated, according to the latest CDC data. About half of those who are eligible for booster doses have received one. In Germany, nearly 76% of people are fully vaccinated, the newspaper reported, and in the United Kingdom, about 74% are fully vaccinated.

Health experts are also considering how natural immunity from a previous infection could affect a BA.2 surge. Millions of Americans were infected with the original Omicron strain, BA.1, which could provide protection. That said, researchers aren’t quite sure whether BA.1 infection protects against BA.2.

“It’s like a weather alert. Right now, the skies are sunny and bright, and we hope they stay that way,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, told CNN.

“But we could have some bad weather by evening,” he said. “We just don’t know.”

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

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In February, citing the need for more data, Pfizer and BioNTech announced that they were delaying the application for their COVID-19 vaccine for children under the age of 5. Earlier evidence suggests that two doses may not provide adequate protection in the 2- to 4-year old age group. With the larger number of infections and illness in the younger age group from the Omicron variant, Pfizer and BioNTech felt they needed more data on the effectiveness of a third dose.

This delay came as a disappointment to parents of children under 5 who have been eager to have them receive the vaccination. However, Peter Marks, MD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, told parents that this delay should be reassuring – that the companies were doing important due diligence before releasing a product that is both safe and effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics wisely released a similar statement of reassurance and support.

It is difficult to know how many parents will eventually immunize their young children once the vaccine is approved. Any survey done more than a few weeks ago must be viewed cautiously as “the COVID numbers” around the country continue to improve and parental attitudes are likely to change.

There will always remain subgroups of parents on either extreme of the bell-shaped curve. Some will reject the under-5 vaccine simply because it is a vaccine. Some parents are so anxious to vaccinate that they will want to be first in line even if waiting is the more prudent approach. In a recent opinion piece appearing in the New York Times, a statistician writes that he is so eager to have his young children immunized that he is encouraging the FDA to replace its traditional reliance on “statistical significance” with a less rigid and binary method such as one based on Bayesian theory (Aubrey Carlton, “I’m a parent and a statistician. There’s a smarter way to think about the under-5 vaccine.” The New York Times. 2022 Mar 1.). However, what this statistician misses in his haste to vaccinate his own children is that we are dealing with an entire population with varying levels of scientific sophistication and appetite for risk. While “statistical significance” may no longer be cutting edge to some statisticians, most of the rest of the country finds the term reassuring.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when the vaccine is approved. Will the American Academy of Pediatrics come out with a strong recommendation? I hope they are careful and provide a sufficient number of caveats, otherwise we in the trenches will again be left to provide more nuanced advice to families who are both anxious and hesitant.

Despite the recent surge in cases among young children, apparently as a result of the Omicron variant, the disease continues to cause less and milder disease among young children than it does in adults. And the degree to which illness in the pediatric population contributes to the health of the general population appears to still be a matter of debate. This may be yet another instance of when the crafty COVID-19 has moved with a pace that will make an under–age-5 vaccine of relatively little value.

First, we must be careful to assure ourselves that any side effects the vaccine might generate are well within an even more restricted acceptable range. Second, we must be careful not to squander our persuasive currency by promoting a vaccine that in retrospect may turn out to be of relatively little value.

Although there is ample evidence that education often fails to convince the committed anti-vaxxers, pediatricians continue to be held in high regard by most parents, many of whom are understandably confused by the tsunami of health information of mixed quality generated by the pandemic. We must be cautious not to cast ourselves as a group whose knee-jerk reaction is to recommend every vaccine with equal vigor. All vaccines are not created equal. We must be patient and prepared to adjust the level of our enthusiasm. We must continue to tailor our advice based on the hard data. Otherwise, parents will stop asking for our advice because they will believe that they already know what we’re going to say.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Almost all patients with both obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and severe asthma fell into the obesity phenotype, not the allergy phenotype, based on data from nearly 1,500 adults.

Both asthma and sleep-disordered breathing are common conditions worldwide, and previous research suggests that obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and severe asthma in particular could be associated, wrote Laurent Portel, MD, of Centre Hospitalier de Libourne, France, and colleagues.

“Even if the underlying mechanisms are not well established, it is clear that both OSAS and obesity act to aggravate existing asthma, making it more difficult to control,” they said. However, the pathology of this relationship is not well-understood, and data on severe asthma phenotypes and OSAS are limited, they said.

In a study published in Respiratory Medicine and Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,465 patients older than 18 years with severe asthma who were part of a larger, prospective multicenter study of the management of asthma patients. The larger study, developed by the Collège des Pneumologues des Hôpitaux Généraux (CPHG) is known as the FASE-CPHG (France Asthme SEvère-CPHG) and includes 104 nonacademic hospitals in France.

Diagnosis of OSAS was reported by physicians; diagnosis of severe asthma was based on the Global Initiative for Asthma criteria. The average age of the patients was 54.4 years, 63% were women, and 60% were nonsmokers.

A total of 161 patients were diagnosed with OSAS. The researchers conducted a cluster analysis on 1,424 patients, including 156 of the OSAS patients. They identified five clusters: early-onset atopic asthma (690 patients), obese asthma (153 patients), late-onset asthma (299 patients), eosinophilic asthma (143 patients), and aspirin sensitivity asthma (139 patients).

All 153 patients in the obese asthma cluster had OSAS, by contrast, none of the patients in the early atopic asthma cluster had OSAS.

Overall, obesity, male sex, high blood pressure, depression, late-onset asthma, and early-onset atopic asthma were independently associated with OSAS, with odds ratios of 5.782, 3.047, 2.875, 2.552, 1.789, and 0.622, respectively.

Notably, OSAS patients were more frequently treated with long-term oral corticosteroids than those without OSAS (30% vs. 15%, P < .0001), the researchers said. “It is possible that this treatment may be responsible for obesity, and it represents a well-known risk factor for developing OSAS,” they wrote.

Uncontrolled asthma was significantly more common in OSAS patients than in those without OSAS (77.7% vs. 69%, P = .03), and significantly more OSAS patients reported no or occasional physical activity (79.8% vs. 68.2%, P ≤ .001).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of patients from primary care or university hospitals, which may limit the generalizability of the results, the reliance on physician statements for diagnosis of OSAS, and the lack of data on OSAS severity or treatment, the researchers noted.

However, the results fill a needed gap in the literature because of the limited data on severe asthma patients in real life, and identifying severe asthma patients by phenotype may help identify those at greatest risk for OSAS, they said.

“Identified patients could more easily benefit from specific examinations such as poly(somno)graphy and, consequently, could benefit from a better management of both asthma and OSAS,” they emphasized.

The larger FASE-CPHG study was supported in part by ALK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, and Le Nouveau Souffle. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued an expert consensus clinical guidance document for the evaluation and management of adults with key cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

The document makes recommendations on how to evaluate and manage COVID-associated myocarditis and long COVID and gives advice on resumption of exercise following COVID-19 infection.

The clinical guidance was published online March 16 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

AlexLMX/Getty Images

“The best means to diagnose and treat myocarditis and long COVID following SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to evolve,” said Ty Gluckman, MD, MHA, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway. “This document attempts to provide key recommendations for how to evaluate and manage adults with these conditions, including guidance for safe return to play for both competitive and noncompetitive athletes.”

The authors of the guidance note that COVID-19 can be associated with various abnormalities in cardiac testing and a wide range of cardiovascular complications. For some patients, cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, and palpitations persist, lasting months after the initial illness, and evidence of myocardial injury has also been observed in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, as well as after receipt of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. 

“For clinicians treating these individuals, a growing number of questions exist related to evaluation and management of these conditions, as well as safe resumption of physical activity,” they say. This report is intended to provide practical guidance on these issues.
 

Myocarditis

The report states that myocarditis has been recognized as a rare but serious complication of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

It defines myocarditis as: 1.cardiac symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, palpitations, or syncope; 2. elevated cardiac troponin; and 3. abnormal electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, cardiac MRI, and/or histopathologic findings on biopsy.

The document makes the following recommendations in regard to COVID-related myocarditis:

When there is increased suspicion for cardiac involvement with COVID-19, initial testing should consist of an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram. Cardiology consultation is recommended for those with a rising cardiac troponin and/or echocardiographic abnormalities. Cardiac MRI is recommended in hemodynamically stable patients with suspected myocarditis.

Hospitalization is recommended for patients with definite myocarditis, ideally at an advanced heart failure center. Patients with fulminant myocarditis should be managed at centers with an expertise in advanced heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced therapies.

Patients with myocarditis and COVID-19 pneumonia (with an ongoing need for supplemental oxygen) should be treated with corticosteroids. For patients with suspected pericardial involvement, treatment with NSAIDs, colchicine, and/or prednisone is reasonable. Intravenous corticosteroids may be considered in those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 myocarditis with hemodynamic compromise or MIS-A (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults). Empiric use of corticosteroids may also be considered in those with biopsy evidence of severe myocardial infiltrates or fulminant myocarditis, balanced against infection risk.

As appropriate, guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure should be initiated and continued after discharge.

The document notes that myocarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination is rare, with highest rates seen in young males after the second vaccine dose. As of May 22, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System noted rates of 40.6 cases per million after the second vaccine dose among male individuals aged 12-29 years and 2.4 cases per million among male individuals aged 30 and older. Corresponding rates in female individuals were 4.2 and 1 cases per million, respectively.

But the report says that COVID-19 vaccination is associated with “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio” for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.

In general, vaccine-associated myocarditis should be diagnosed, categorized, and treated in a manner analogous to myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection, the guidance advises.
 

Long COVID

The document refers to long COVID as postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), and reports that this condition is experienced by up to 10%-30% of infected individuals. It is defined by a constellation of new, returning, or persistent health problems experienced by individuals 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection.

Although individuals with this condition may experience wide-ranging symptoms, the symptoms that draw increased attention to the cardiovascular system include tachycardia, exercise intolerance, chest pain, and shortness of breath.

Nicole Bhave, MD, cochair of the expert consensus decision pathway, says: “There appears to be a ‘downward spiral’ for long-COVID patients. Fatigue and decreased exercise capacity lead to diminished activity and bed rest, in turn leading to worsening symptoms and decreased quality of life.” She adds that “the writing committee recommends a basic cardiopulmonary evaluation performed up front to determine if further specialty care and formalized medical therapy is needed for these patients.”

The authors propose two terms to better understand potential etiologies for those with cardiovascular symptoms:

PASC-CVD, or PASC-cardiovascular disease, refers to a broad group of cardiovascular conditions (including myocarditis) that manifest at least 4 weeks after COVID-19 infection.

PASC-CVS, or PASC-cardiovascular syndrome, includes a wide range of cardiovascular symptoms without objective evidence of cardiovascular disease following standard diagnostic testing.

The document makes the following recommendations for the management of PASC-CVD and PASC-CVS.

For patients with cardiovascular symptoms and suspected PASC, the authors suggest that a reasonable initial testing approach includes basic laboratory testing, including cardiac troponin, an ECG, an echocardiogram, an ambulatory rhythm monitor, chest imaging, and/or pulmonary function tests.

Cardiology consultation is recommended for patients with PASC who have abnormal cardiac test results, known cardiovascular disease with new or worsening symptoms, documented cardiac complications during SARS-CoV-2 infection, and/or persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms that are not otherwise explained.

Recumbent or semirecumbent exercise (for example, rowing, swimming, or cycling) is recommended initially for PASC-CVS patients with tachycardia, exercise/orthostatic intolerance, and/or deconditioning, with transition to upright exercise as orthostatic intolerance improves. Exercise duration should also be short (5-10 minutes/day) initially, with gradual increases as functional capacity improves.

Salt and fluid loading represent nonpharmacologic interventions that may provide symptomatic relief for patients with tachycardia, palpitations, and/or orthostatic hypotension.

Beta-blockers, nondihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, ivabradine, fludrocortisone, and midodrine may be used empirically as well.
 

Return to play for athletes

The authors note that concerns about possible cardiac injury after COVID-19 fueled early apprehension regarding the safety of competitive sports for athletes recovering from the infection.

But they say that subsequent data from large registries have demonstrated an overall low prevalence of clinical myocarditis, without a rise in the rate of adverse cardiac events. Based on this, updated guidance is provided with a practical, evidence-based framework to guide resumption of athletics and intense exercise training.

They make the following recommendations:

• For athletes recovering from COVID-19 with ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms (chest pain, shortness of breath, palpitations, lightheadedness) or those requiring hospitalization with increased suspicion for cardiac involvement, further evaluation with triad testing – an ECG, measurement of cardiac troponin, and an echocardiogram – should be performed.
• For those with abnormal test results, further evaluation with cardiac MRI should be considered. Individuals diagnosed with clinical myocarditis should abstain from exercise for 3-6 months.
• Cardiac testing is not recommended for asymptomatic individuals following COVID-19 infection. Individuals should abstain from training for 3 days to ensure that symptoms do not develop.
• For those with mild or moderate noncardiopulmonary symptoms (fever, lethargy, muscle aches), training may resume after symptom resolution.
• For those with remote infection (≥3 months) without ongoing cardiopulmonary symptoms, a gradual increase in exercise is recommended without the need for cardiac testing.

Based on the low prevalence of myocarditis observed in competitive athletes with COVID-19, the authors note that these recommendations can be reasonably applied to high-school athletes (aged 14 and older) along with adult recreational exercise enthusiasts.

Future study is needed, however, to better understand how long cardiac abnormalities persist following COVID-19 infection and the role of exercise training in long COVID.

The authors conclude that the current guidance is intended to help clinicians understand not only when testing may be warranted, but also when it is not.

“Given that it reflects the current state of knowledge through early 2022, it is anticipated that recommendations will change over time as our understanding evolves,” they say.

The 2022 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Cardiovascular Sequelae of COVID-19: Myocarditis, Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (PASC), and Return to Play will be discussed in a session at the American College of Cardiology’s annual scientific session meeting in Washington in April.

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

A form of gene therapy has shown significant benefit in men with a severe form of the bleeding disorder hemophilia A.

Significant results were seen 1 year after receiving a single intravenous infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (AAV5-hFVIII-SQ), investigators from the international GENEr8-1 trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘Truly transformative and liberating’

“If approved, this first-generation gene therapy would offer a new choice for care that could be truly transformative and liberating for eligible men with hemophilia,” writes Courtney D. Thornburg, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Treatment Center at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial.

Hemophilia A is an X-linked bleeding disorder caused by mutations in the gene encoding for coagulation factor VIII. Although rare, it is nevertheless the most common type, affecting about 12 per 100,000. Hemophilia B affects about 3.7 per 100,000.  

The current treatment for hemophilia A is prophylactic infusions of factor VIII, often given three times per week.

With the gene therapy, such a patient could avoid at least 150 intravenous infusions of prophylactic factor in the span of a year, and have zero bleeds, Dr. Thornburg noted.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is an adeno-associated virus 5-based gene therapy vector that expresses a human factor VIII coding sequence, and is designed to correct the central genetic defect in hemophilia A.

Results from the phase 3 open-label trial show that it was associated with improved endogenous clotting factor production, and also a significant decrease in bleeding.

At 49-52 weeks of follow-up, 132 patients in a modified intention-to-treat analysis had a mean increase in factor VIII activity levels of 41.9 IU/dL (P < .001).

In a subgroup of 112 patients, the mean annualized factor concentrate use at 4 weeks decreased by 98.6%, and annualized rates of treated bleeding declined by 83.8% (P < .001 for both comparisons).

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene transfer for severe hemophilia A provided significant increases in factor VIII activity, with reduced bleeding and factor VIII use for most participants over a period of up to 2 years,” conclude the investigators, led by Margareth C. Ozelo, MD, PhD, from the University of Campinas (Brazil).

“We are very enthusiastic about the results of this phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Ozelo commented to this news organization.

“It is important to recognize the clinical benefit achieved so far with treatment. During the first year, 90% of study participants had either zero treated bleeds or fewer treated bleeds post infusion than with factor VIII prophylaxis,” she said. “In addition, most of the study participants, including those from the phase 1/2 clinical trial, in the 5-year follow-up remain free of the use of additional prophylactic treatments.”

One issue that remains unanswered is how long the effects may last.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is a one-time infusion, she explained. “At least for now, redosing with the same AAV vector is not an option due to the immune response induced.”

“The durability of therapeutic response is one of the critical issues involving this new treatment for hemophilia. Currently, we cannot predict how long the transgene expression will last,” she added.

In the study, Dr. Ozelo and colleagues noted that “expression of the transferred gene appears to decline over time; further study is needed to address whether repeat treatment will be necessary or possible.”

Editorialist Dr. Thornburg touched on this point in an interview with this news organization.

Complete elimination of factor VIII replacement therapy is an ambitious goal, but gene therapy could obviate the need for prophylaxis in a substantial proportion of patients, she said. “Any increase of about 3%-5% in endogenous factor VIII production would eliminate the need for regular preventive treatments, either with regular factor or nonfactor replacements.

“How long that will be sustained is an open question,” she added. “With hemophilia B [factor IX deficiency] we have longer-term data showing quite good sustainability of the treatment, but I think it’s still an open question for hemophilia A.”

Dr. Thornburg also noted that further studies are needed to find similar therapies to benefit women and children with hemophilia, as well as for patients with factor VIII inhibitors, those with immunity to adenoviral vectors, and patients with hemophilia and concomitant liver disease or HIV infection.
 

GENEr8-1 study details and results

The trial was conducted in men 18 and older with severe congenital hemophilia A who had received prophylaxis with factor VIII concentrates for at least 1 year and were negative for factor VIII inhibitors.

The patient sample included 20 men enrolled directly, and 110 participants in a prospective noninterventional study of bleeding episodes, factor VIII infusions, and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with severe hemophilia A.

Participants received one infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, at a dose of 6x10¹³ vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

They remained on factor VIII prophylaxis for 4 weeks after the infusion of the gene therapy product, but after that factor VIII was used on an as-needed basis.

A total of 134 patients received an infusion and were included in the safety analysis. Two patients who were HIV positive were excluded from the modified intention-to-treat efficacy analysis.

As noted above, the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of change from baseline in factor VIII activity 49-52 weeks after infusion, and the secondary endpoints of change from baseline to after week 4 in annualized use of factor VIII concentrate and the annualized number of treated bleeding episodes.

The most common adverse event was an elevation in alanine aminotransferase levels, the investigators noted.

These elevations in ALT levels, which have also been seen with gene therapy for hemophilia B, occurred in 85.8% of patients and could be safely managed with immunosuppressants, the authors commented.

Other common adverse events were headache, nausea, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase levels, each occurring in slightly more than one third of patients.

“Overall, the risk-benefit profile appears favorable,” the team commented.

The study was supported by BioMarin Pharmaceutical. Dr. Ozelo disclosed grant support from the company. Dr. Thornburg disclosed serving as a consultant to BioMarin and others.

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

A form of gene therapy has shown significant benefit in men with a severe form of the bleeding disorder hemophilia A.

Significant results were seen 1 year after receiving a single intravenous infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (AAV5-hFVIII-SQ), investigators from the international GENEr8-1 trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘Truly transformative and liberating’

“If approved, this first-generation gene therapy would offer a new choice for care that could be truly transformative and liberating for eligible men with hemophilia,” writes Courtney D. Thornburg, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Treatment Center at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial.

Hemophilia A is an X-linked bleeding disorder caused by mutations in the gene encoding for coagulation factor VIII. Although rare, it is nevertheless the most common type, affecting about 12 per 100,000. Hemophilia B affects about 3.7 per 100,000.  

The current treatment for hemophilia A is prophylactic infusions of factor VIII, often given three times per week.

With the gene therapy, such a patient could avoid at least 150 intravenous infusions of prophylactic factor in the span of a year, and have zero bleeds, Dr. Thornburg noted.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is an adeno-associated virus 5-based gene therapy vector that expresses a human factor VIII coding sequence, and is designed to correct the central genetic defect in hemophilia A.

Results from the phase 3 open-label trial show that it was associated with improved endogenous clotting factor production, and also a significant decrease in bleeding.

At 49-52 weeks of follow-up, 132 patients in a modified intention-to-treat analysis had a mean increase in factor VIII activity levels of 41.9 IU/dL (P < .001).

In a subgroup of 112 patients, the mean annualized factor concentrate use at 4 weeks decreased by 98.6%, and annualized rates of treated bleeding declined by 83.8% (P < .001 for both comparisons).

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene transfer for severe hemophilia A provided significant increases in factor VIII activity, with reduced bleeding and factor VIII use for most participants over a period of up to 2 years,” conclude the investigators, led by Margareth C. Ozelo, MD, PhD, from the University of Campinas (Brazil).

“We are very enthusiastic about the results of this phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Ozelo commented to this news organization.

“It is important to recognize the clinical benefit achieved so far with treatment. During the first year, 90% of study participants had either zero treated bleeds or fewer treated bleeds post infusion than with factor VIII prophylaxis,” she said. “In addition, most of the study participants, including those from the phase 1/2 clinical trial, in the 5-year follow-up remain free of the use of additional prophylactic treatments.”

One issue that remains unanswered is how long the effects may last.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is a one-time infusion, she explained. “At least for now, redosing with the same AAV vector is not an option due to the immune response induced.”

“The durability of therapeutic response is one of the critical issues involving this new treatment for hemophilia. Currently, we cannot predict how long the transgene expression will last,” she added.

In the study, Dr. Ozelo and colleagues noted that “expression of the transferred gene appears to decline over time; further study is needed to address whether repeat treatment will be necessary or possible.”

Editorialist Dr. Thornburg touched on this point in an interview with this news organization.

Complete elimination of factor VIII replacement therapy is an ambitious goal, but gene therapy could obviate the need for prophylaxis in a substantial proportion of patients, she said. “Any increase of about 3%-5% in endogenous factor VIII production would eliminate the need for regular preventive treatments, either with regular factor or nonfactor replacements.

“How long that will be sustained is an open question,” she added. “With hemophilia B [factor IX deficiency] we have longer-term data showing quite good sustainability of the treatment, but I think it’s still an open question for hemophilia A.”

Dr. Thornburg also noted that further studies are needed to find similar therapies to benefit women and children with hemophilia, as well as for patients with factor VIII inhibitors, those with immunity to adenoviral vectors, and patients with hemophilia and concomitant liver disease or HIV infection.
 

GENEr8-1 study details and results

The trial was conducted in men 18 and older with severe congenital hemophilia A who had received prophylaxis with factor VIII concentrates for at least 1 year and were negative for factor VIII inhibitors.

The patient sample included 20 men enrolled directly, and 110 participants in a prospective noninterventional study of bleeding episodes, factor VIII infusions, and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with severe hemophilia A.

Participants received one infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, at a dose of 6x10¹³ vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

They remained on factor VIII prophylaxis for 4 weeks after the infusion of the gene therapy product, but after that factor VIII was used on an as-needed basis.

A total of 134 patients received an infusion and were included in the safety analysis. Two patients who were HIV positive were excluded from the modified intention-to-treat efficacy analysis.

As noted above, the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of change from baseline in factor VIII activity 49-52 weeks after infusion, and the secondary endpoints of change from baseline to after week 4 in annualized use of factor VIII concentrate and the annualized number of treated bleeding episodes.

The most common adverse event was an elevation in alanine aminotransferase levels, the investigators noted.

These elevations in ALT levels, which have also been seen with gene therapy for hemophilia B, occurred in 85.8% of patients and could be safely managed with immunosuppressants, the authors commented.

Other common adverse events were headache, nausea, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase levels, each occurring in slightly more than one third of patients.

“Overall, the risk-benefit profile appears favorable,” the team commented.

The study was supported by BioMarin Pharmaceutical. Dr. Ozelo disclosed grant support from the company. Dr. Thornburg disclosed serving as a consultant to BioMarin and others.

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

A form of gene therapy has shown significant benefit in men with a severe form of the bleeding disorder hemophilia A.

Significant results were seen 1 year after receiving a single intravenous infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec (AAV5-hFVIII-SQ), investigators from the international GENEr8-1 trial reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘Truly transformative and liberating’

“If approved, this first-generation gene therapy would offer a new choice for care that could be truly transformative and liberating for eligible men with hemophilia,” writes Courtney D. Thornburg, from the Hemophilia and Thrombosis Treatment Center at Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego, in an accompanying editorial.

Hemophilia A is an X-linked bleeding disorder caused by mutations in the gene encoding for coagulation factor VIII. Although rare, it is nevertheless the most common type, affecting about 12 per 100,000. Hemophilia B affects about 3.7 per 100,000.  

The current treatment for hemophilia A is prophylactic infusions of factor VIII, often given three times per week.

With the gene therapy, such a patient could avoid at least 150 intravenous infusions of prophylactic factor in the span of a year, and have zero bleeds, Dr. Thornburg noted.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is an adeno-associated virus 5-based gene therapy vector that expresses a human factor VIII coding sequence, and is designed to correct the central genetic defect in hemophilia A.

Results from the phase 3 open-label trial show that it was associated with improved endogenous clotting factor production, and also a significant decrease in bleeding.

At 49-52 weeks of follow-up, 132 patients in a modified intention-to-treat analysis had a mean increase in factor VIII activity levels of 41.9 IU/dL (P < .001).

In a subgroup of 112 patients, the mean annualized factor concentrate use at 4 weeks decreased by 98.6%, and annualized rates of treated bleeding declined by 83.8% (P < .001 for both comparisons).

“Valoctocogene roxaparvovec gene transfer for severe hemophilia A provided significant increases in factor VIII activity, with reduced bleeding and factor VIII use for most participants over a period of up to 2 years,” conclude the investigators, led by Margareth C. Ozelo, MD, PhD, from the University of Campinas (Brazil).

“We are very enthusiastic about the results of this phase 3 clinical trial,” Dr. Ozelo commented to this news organization.

“It is important to recognize the clinical benefit achieved so far with treatment. During the first year, 90% of study participants had either zero treated bleeds or fewer treated bleeds post infusion than with factor VIII prophylaxis,” she said. “In addition, most of the study participants, including those from the phase 1/2 clinical trial, in the 5-year follow-up remain free of the use of additional prophylactic treatments.”

One issue that remains unanswered is how long the effects may last.

Valoctocogene roxaparvovec is a one-time infusion, she explained. “At least for now, redosing with the same AAV vector is not an option due to the immune response induced.”

“The durability of therapeutic response is one of the critical issues involving this new treatment for hemophilia. Currently, we cannot predict how long the transgene expression will last,” she added.

In the study, Dr. Ozelo and colleagues noted that “expression of the transferred gene appears to decline over time; further study is needed to address whether repeat treatment will be necessary or possible.”

Editorialist Dr. Thornburg touched on this point in an interview with this news organization.

Complete elimination of factor VIII replacement therapy is an ambitious goal, but gene therapy could obviate the need for prophylaxis in a substantial proportion of patients, she said. “Any increase of about 3%-5% in endogenous factor VIII production would eliminate the need for regular preventive treatments, either with regular factor or nonfactor replacements.

“How long that will be sustained is an open question,” she added. “With hemophilia B [factor IX deficiency] we have longer-term data showing quite good sustainability of the treatment, but I think it’s still an open question for hemophilia A.”

Dr. Thornburg also noted that further studies are needed to find similar therapies to benefit women and children with hemophilia, as well as for patients with factor VIII inhibitors, those with immunity to adenoviral vectors, and patients with hemophilia and concomitant liver disease or HIV infection.
 

GENEr8-1 study details and results

The trial was conducted in men 18 and older with severe congenital hemophilia A who had received prophylaxis with factor VIII concentrates for at least 1 year and were negative for factor VIII inhibitors.

The patient sample included 20 men enrolled directly, and 110 participants in a prospective noninterventional study of bleeding episodes, factor VIII infusions, and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with severe hemophilia A.

Participants received one infusion of valoctocogene roxaparvovec, at a dose of 6x10¹³ vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

They remained on factor VIII prophylaxis for 4 weeks after the infusion of the gene therapy product, but after that factor VIII was used on an as-needed basis.

A total of 134 patients received an infusion and were included in the safety analysis. Two patients who were HIV positive were excluded from the modified intention-to-treat efficacy analysis.

As noted above, the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of change from baseline in factor VIII activity 49-52 weeks after infusion, and the secondary endpoints of change from baseline to after week 4 in annualized use of factor VIII concentrate and the annualized number of treated bleeding episodes.

The most common adverse event was an elevation in alanine aminotransferase levels, the investigators noted.

These elevations in ALT levels, which have also been seen with gene therapy for hemophilia B, occurred in 85.8% of patients and could be safely managed with immunosuppressants, the authors commented.

Other common adverse events were headache, nausea, and elevations in aspartate aminotransferase levels, each occurring in slightly more than one third of patients.

“Overall, the risk-benefit profile appears favorable,” the team commented.

The study was supported by BioMarin Pharmaceutical. Dr. Ozelo disclosed grant support from the company. Dr. Thornburg disclosed serving as a consultant to BioMarin and others.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who do not respond adequately to or can’t tolerate anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents.

It marks the first FDA approval for the selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in gastroenterology and is supported by efficacy and safety data from three phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies.

In clinical trials, upadacitinib achieved the primary endpoints of clinical remission, per modified Mayo Score, at 8 and 52 weeks.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients who received upadacitinib achieved clinical response as early as the second week of treatment and steroid-free clinical remission at 1 year, as well as key endoscopic and histologic improvement endpoints at 8 and 52 weeks.

“Ulcerative colitis patients live with unpredictable symptoms such as increased stool frequency and bleeding, which can make daily activities difficult,” Maria T. Abreu, MD, director, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, University of Miami Health System, said in a news release issued by AbbVie.

Upadacitinib has been shown to “rapidly control symptoms,” said Dr. Abreu, adding, “I believe these types of improvements can make a positive difference for my patients.”

Upadacitinib is also approved in the United States to treat adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and active psoriatic arthritis.

Overall, the safety profile observed in patients with UC who were treated with upadacitinib was generally similar to the safety profile in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who do not respond adequately to or can’t tolerate anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents.

It marks the first FDA approval for the selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in gastroenterology and is supported by efficacy and safety data from three phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies.

In clinical trials, upadacitinib achieved the primary endpoints of clinical remission, per modified Mayo Score, at 8 and 52 weeks.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients who received upadacitinib achieved clinical response as early as the second week of treatment and steroid-free clinical remission at 1 year, as well as key endoscopic and histologic improvement endpoints at 8 and 52 weeks.

“Ulcerative colitis patients live with unpredictable symptoms such as increased stool frequency and bleeding, which can make daily activities difficult,” Maria T. Abreu, MD, director, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, University of Miami Health System, said in a news release issued by AbbVie.

Upadacitinib has been shown to “rapidly control symptoms,” said Dr. Abreu, adding, “I believe these types of improvements can make a positive difference for my patients.”

Upadacitinib is also approved in the United States to treat adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and active psoriatic arthritis.

Overall, the safety profile observed in patients with UC who were treated with upadacitinib was generally similar to the safety profile in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for the treatment of adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who do not respond adequately to or can’t tolerate anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agents.

It marks the first FDA approval for the selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in gastroenterology and is supported by efficacy and safety data from three phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies.

In clinical trials, upadacitinib achieved the primary endpoints of clinical remission, per modified Mayo Score, at 8 and 52 weeks.

In addition, a greater proportion of patients who received upadacitinib achieved clinical response as early as the second week of treatment and steroid-free clinical remission at 1 year, as well as key endoscopic and histologic improvement endpoints at 8 and 52 weeks.

“Ulcerative colitis patients live with unpredictable symptoms such as increased stool frequency and bleeding, which can make daily activities difficult,” Maria T. Abreu, MD, director, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, University of Miami Health System, said in a news release issued by AbbVie.

Upadacitinib has been shown to “rapidly control symptoms,” said Dr. Abreu, adding, “I believe these types of improvements can make a positive difference for my patients.”

Upadacitinib is also approved in the United States to treat adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and active psoriatic arthritis.

Overall, the safety profile observed in patients with UC who were treated with upadacitinib was generally similar to the safety profile in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and atopic dermatitis.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

A year of high-intensity interval training seemed to benefit obese middle-aged adults at a high risk of heart failure, but omega-3 fatty acid supplementation didn’t have any effect on cardiac biomarkers measured in a small, single-center, prospective study.

“One year of HIIT training reduces adiposity but had no consistent effect on myocardial triglyceride content or visceral adiposity,” wrote lead author Christopher M. Hearon Jr., PhD, and colleagues in JACC: Heart Failure. “However, long-duration HIIT improves fitness and induces favorable cardiac remodeling.” Omega-3 supplementation, however, had “no independent or additive effect.” Dr. Hearon is an instructor of applied clinical research at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Investigators there and at the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas studied 80 patients aged 40-55 years classified as high risk for HF and obese, randomizing them to a year of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with supplementation of either 1.6 g omega-3 FA or placebo daily; or to a control group split between supplementation or placebo. Fifty-six patients completed the 1-year study, with a compliance rate of 90% in the HIIT group and 92% in those assigned omega-3 FA supplementation.

Carl J. “Chip” Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans, commented that, although the study was “extremely well done from an excellent research group,” it was limited by its small population and relatively short follow-up. Future research should evaluate HIIT and moderate exercise on clinical events over a longer term as well as different doses of omega-3 “There is tremendous potential for omega-3 in heart failure prevention and treatment.”
 

HIIT boosts exercise capacity, more

In the study, the HIIT group showed improvement in a number of cardiac markers: around a 22% improvement in exercise capacity as measured by absolute peak and relative peak oxygen uptake (VO₂), even without significant weight loss. They improved an average of 0.43 L/min (0.32-0.53; P < .0001) and 4.46 mL/kg per minute (3.18-5.56; ^P < .0001), respectively.

The researchers attributed the increase in peak VO₂ to an increase in peak cardiac output averaging 2.15 L/min (95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.39; P = .001) and stroke volume averaging 9.46 mL (95% CI, 0.65-18.27; P = .04). A year of exercise training also resulted in changes in cardiac remodeling, including increases in left ventricle mass and LV end diastolic volume, averaging 9.4 g (95% CI, 4.36-14.44; P < .001) and 12.33 mL (95% CI, 5.61-19.05; P < .001), respectively.  

The study also found that neither intervention had any appreciable impact on body weight, body mass index, body surface area or lean mass, or markers of arterial or local carotid stiffness. The exercise group had a modest decrease in fat mass, averaging 2.63 kg (95% CI,–4.81 to –0.46; P = .02), but without any effect from omega-3 supplementation.

The study acknowledged that high-dose omega-3 supplements have been found to lower triglyceride levels in people with severe hypertriglyceridemia, and hypothesized that HIIT alone or with omega-3 supplementation would improve fitness and biomarkers in people with stage A HF. “Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that one year of n-3FA [omega-3 FA] supplementation had no detectable effect on any parameter related to cardiopulmonary fitness, cardiovascular remodeling/stiffness, visceral adiposity, or myocardial triglyceride content,” Dr. Hearon and colleagues wrote.

The study “shows that obese middle-aged patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] can markedly improve their fitness with HIIT and, generally, fitness is one of the strongest if not the strongest predictor of prognosis and survival,” said Dr. Lavie.

“Studies are needed on exercise that improves fitness in both HF with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF, but especially HFpEF,” he said.

The study received funding from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Hearon and coauthors have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lavie is a speaker and consultant for PAI Health, the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s and DSM Nutritional Products.
 

A year of high-intensity interval training seemed to benefit obese middle-aged adults at a high risk of heart failure, but omega-3 fatty acid supplementation didn’t have any effect on cardiac biomarkers measured in a small, single-center, prospective study.

“One year of HIIT training reduces adiposity but had no consistent effect on myocardial triglyceride content or visceral adiposity,” wrote lead author Christopher M. Hearon Jr., PhD, and colleagues in JACC: Heart Failure. “However, long-duration HIIT improves fitness and induces favorable cardiac remodeling.” Omega-3 supplementation, however, had “no independent or additive effect.” Dr. Hearon is an instructor of applied clinical research at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Investigators there and at the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas studied 80 patients aged 40-55 years classified as high risk for HF and obese, randomizing them to a year of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with supplementation of either 1.6 g omega-3 FA or placebo daily; or to a control group split between supplementation or placebo. Fifty-six patients completed the 1-year study, with a compliance rate of 90% in the HIIT group and 92% in those assigned omega-3 FA supplementation.

Carl J. “Chip” Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans, commented that, although the study was “extremely well done from an excellent research group,” it was limited by its small population and relatively short follow-up. Future research should evaluate HIIT and moderate exercise on clinical events over a longer term as well as different doses of omega-3 “There is tremendous potential for omega-3 in heart failure prevention and treatment.”
 

HIIT boosts exercise capacity, more

In the study, the HIIT group showed improvement in a number of cardiac markers: around a 22% improvement in exercise capacity as measured by absolute peak and relative peak oxygen uptake (VO₂), even without significant weight loss. They improved an average of 0.43 L/min (0.32-0.53; P < .0001) and 4.46 mL/kg per minute (3.18-5.56; ^P < .0001), respectively.

The researchers attributed the increase in peak VO₂ to an increase in peak cardiac output averaging 2.15 L/min (95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.39; P = .001) and stroke volume averaging 9.46 mL (95% CI, 0.65-18.27; P = .04). A year of exercise training also resulted in changes in cardiac remodeling, including increases in left ventricle mass and LV end diastolic volume, averaging 9.4 g (95% CI, 4.36-14.44; P < .001) and 12.33 mL (95% CI, 5.61-19.05; P < .001), respectively.  

The study also found that neither intervention had any appreciable impact on body weight, body mass index, body surface area or lean mass, or markers of arterial or local carotid stiffness. The exercise group had a modest decrease in fat mass, averaging 2.63 kg (95% CI,–4.81 to –0.46; P = .02), but without any effect from omega-3 supplementation.

The study acknowledged that high-dose omega-3 supplements have been found to lower triglyceride levels in people with severe hypertriglyceridemia, and hypothesized that HIIT alone or with omega-3 supplementation would improve fitness and biomarkers in people with stage A HF. “Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that one year of n-3FA [omega-3 FA] supplementation had no detectable effect on any parameter related to cardiopulmonary fitness, cardiovascular remodeling/stiffness, visceral adiposity, or myocardial triglyceride content,” Dr. Hearon and colleagues wrote.

The study “shows that obese middle-aged patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] can markedly improve their fitness with HIIT and, generally, fitness is one of the strongest if not the strongest predictor of prognosis and survival,” said Dr. Lavie.

“Studies are needed on exercise that improves fitness in both HF with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF, but especially HFpEF,” he said.

The study received funding from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Hearon and coauthors have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lavie is a speaker and consultant for PAI Health, the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s and DSM Nutritional Products.
 

A year of high-intensity interval training seemed to benefit obese middle-aged adults at a high risk of heart failure, but omega-3 fatty acid supplementation didn’t have any effect on cardiac biomarkers measured in a small, single-center, prospective study.

“One year of HIIT training reduces adiposity but had no consistent effect on myocardial triglyceride content or visceral adiposity,” wrote lead author Christopher M. Hearon Jr., PhD, and colleagues in JACC: Heart Failure. “However, long-duration HIIT improves fitness and induces favorable cardiac remodeling.” Omega-3 supplementation, however, had “no independent or additive effect.” Dr. Hearon is an instructor of applied clinical research at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Investigators there and at the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas studied 80 patients aged 40-55 years classified as high risk for HF and obese, randomizing them to a year of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with supplementation of either 1.6 g omega-3 FA or placebo daily; or to a control group split between supplementation or placebo. Fifty-six patients completed the 1-year study, with a compliance rate of 90% in the HIIT group and 92% in those assigned omega-3 FA supplementation.

Carl J. “Chip” Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans, commented that, although the study was “extremely well done from an excellent research group,” it was limited by its small population and relatively short follow-up. Future research should evaluate HIIT and moderate exercise on clinical events over a longer term as well as different doses of omega-3 “There is tremendous potential for omega-3 in heart failure prevention and treatment.”
 

HIIT boosts exercise capacity, more

In the study, the HIIT group showed improvement in a number of cardiac markers: around a 22% improvement in exercise capacity as measured by absolute peak and relative peak oxygen uptake (VO₂), even without significant weight loss. They improved an average of 0.43 L/min (0.32-0.53; P < .0001) and 4.46 mL/kg per minute (3.18-5.56; ^P < .0001), respectively.

The researchers attributed the increase in peak VO₂ to an increase in peak cardiac output averaging 2.15 L/min (95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.39; P = .001) and stroke volume averaging 9.46 mL (95% CI, 0.65-18.27; P = .04). A year of exercise training also resulted in changes in cardiac remodeling, including increases in left ventricle mass and LV end diastolic volume, averaging 9.4 g (95% CI, 4.36-14.44; P < .001) and 12.33 mL (95% CI, 5.61-19.05; P < .001), respectively.  

The study also found that neither intervention had any appreciable impact on body weight, body mass index, body surface area or lean mass, or markers of arterial or local carotid stiffness. The exercise group had a modest decrease in fat mass, averaging 2.63 kg (95% CI,–4.81 to –0.46; P = .02), but without any effect from omega-3 supplementation.

The study acknowledged that high-dose omega-3 supplements have been found to lower triglyceride levels in people with severe hypertriglyceridemia, and hypothesized that HIIT alone or with omega-3 supplementation would improve fitness and biomarkers in people with stage A HF. “Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that one year of n-3FA [omega-3 FA] supplementation had no detectable effect on any parameter related to cardiopulmonary fitness, cardiovascular remodeling/stiffness, visceral adiposity, or myocardial triglyceride content,” Dr. Hearon and colleagues wrote.

The study “shows that obese middle-aged patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] can markedly improve their fitness with HIIT and, generally, fitness is one of the strongest if not the strongest predictor of prognosis and survival,” said Dr. Lavie.

“Studies are needed on exercise that improves fitness in both HF with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF, but especially HFpEF,” he said.

The study received funding from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Hearon and coauthors have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lavie is a speaker and consultant for PAI Health, the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s and DSM Nutritional Products.
 

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”

“I’m not surprised as a woman in cardiology myself. I was told by my training director that if I took off more than my allowed sick leave when I had my first and second children, I would have to repeat the year of training, so not surprised at all. I hear this from colleagues all the time,” Dr. Bairey Merz said.

The exchange left her feeling fearful for her career.

“Who wants to repeat a year? It pushes you back from a career standpoint, financially, everything. It also made me angry. I had a colleague who busted his leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to do any procedures for 16 weeks, and he didn’t have to repeat the year,” she pointed out.

The challenge that pregnancy represents is frequently cited by women as a deterrent for applying for a cardiology fellowship, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the survey “reveal restrictive maternity leave data in a profession that has historically and currently continues to have a diversity problem,” they wrote.

“Maternity and pregnancy issues are a thing in cardiology,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview. “It’s one of the reasons why women get deterred from going into the field. It makes it challenging to choose cardiology if you perceive that the culture is negative, that it’s hard to be pregnant, or to bear children, or to take care of them post partum. It is problematic and it should not be occurring now.”

Leadership that condones such restrictive policies or even promotes them through ignorance and inaction needs to be held accountable, she added.

“We need to move forward from this negativity and make it more warm and welcoming to have families, whether you are a trainee or a practicing cardiologist, male or female. We need transparent and consistent parental leave policies and things like lactation support when a woman returns to work. That is a big issue,” Dr. Mehta said.

Having cardiovascular leaders champion the cause of adequate maternity and paternity leave are crucial to creating a newer, inclusive environment in cardiology.

As an example, Dr. Mehta recounted her own experience when she was in training 17 years ago.

“When I interviewed for a cardiology fellowship, one of the female program directors asked me if I was planning to have children, because if I did, the other fellows wouldn’t like it if they had to cover for me,” she said. “I ended up doing my fellowship where the chief of cardiology encouraged me to have children. He said: ‘Have your children during training, we will support you.’ And he did. I still had to do all of the call make-up and that stuff, but I worked in a supportive environment, and it made all the difference.”

“It’s about allyship,” she added. “You will have some people who are supportive and some who are not, but when you have the chief supporting you, you have a strong ally.”

The researchers suggest that one strategy is to temporarily replace cardiologists on maternity leave with locums, or “deepen the bench of coverage for clinical work, as is done for other absences. Given the expanding coverage of parental and family medical leaves, and awareness of these issues nationally, the need for this is likely to become less of an exception and more the rule.”

For example, nine states and Washington, D.C. now provide paid parental leave, they wrote, “and there is pending legislation in others.”

Dr. Bairey Merz and Dr. Mehta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”

“I’m not surprised as a woman in cardiology myself. I was told by my training director that if I took off more than my allowed sick leave when I had my first and second children, I would have to repeat the year of training, so not surprised at all. I hear this from colleagues all the time,” Dr. Bairey Merz said.

The exchange left her feeling fearful for her career.

“Who wants to repeat a year? It pushes you back from a career standpoint, financially, everything. It also made me angry. I had a colleague who busted his leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to do any procedures for 16 weeks, and he didn’t have to repeat the year,” she pointed out.

The challenge that pregnancy represents is frequently cited by women as a deterrent for applying for a cardiology fellowship, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the survey “reveal restrictive maternity leave data in a profession that has historically and currently continues to have a diversity problem,” they wrote.

“Maternity and pregnancy issues are a thing in cardiology,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview. “It’s one of the reasons why women get deterred from going into the field. It makes it challenging to choose cardiology if you perceive that the culture is negative, that it’s hard to be pregnant, or to bear children, or to take care of them post partum. It is problematic and it should not be occurring now.”

Leadership that condones such restrictive policies or even promotes them through ignorance and inaction needs to be held accountable, she added.

“We need to move forward from this negativity and make it more warm and welcoming to have families, whether you are a trainee or a practicing cardiologist, male or female. We need transparent and consistent parental leave policies and things like lactation support when a woman returns to work. That is a big issue,” Dr. Mehta said.

Having cardiovascular leaders champion the cause of adequate maternity and paternity leave are crucial to creating a newer, inclusive environment in cardiology.

As an example, Dr. Mehta recounted her own experience when she was in training 17 years ago.

“When I interviewed for a cardiology fellowship, one of the female program directors asked me if I was planning to have children, because if I did, the other fellows wouldn’t like it if they had to cover for me,” she said. “I ended up doing my fellowship where the chief of cardiology encouraged me to have children. He said: ‘Have your children during training, we will support you.’ And he did. I still had to do all of the call make-up and that stuff, but I worked in a supportive environment, and it made all the difference.”

“It’s about allyship,” she added. “You will have some people who are supportive and some who are not, but when you have the chief supporting you, you have a strong ally.”

The researchers suggest that one strategy is to temporarily replace cardiologists on maternity leave with locums, or “deepen the bench of coverage for clinical work, as is done for other absences. Given the expanding coverage of parental and family medical leaves, and awareness of these issues nationally, the need for this is likely to become less of an exception and more the rule.”

For example, nine states and Washington, D.C. now provide paid parental leave, they wrote, “and there is pending legislation in others.”

Dr. Bairey Merz and Dr. Mehta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A survey of 323 women cardiologists who were working while they were pregnant showed that nearly 75% experienced discriminatory maternity-leave practices, some of which were likely violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

More than 40% saw their salaries decreased during their year of pregnancy, 38% were required to perform extra service or call before taking maternity leave, exposing them to occupational hazards such as radiation, and 40% experienced a pregnancy complication, significantly higher than the general population and other medical specialties.

Additionally, of those who performed extra service or call, 18% were placed on bedrest before delivery, compared with 7.4% who did not perform extra service or call.

More than half of respondents reported that pregnancy negatively impacted their careers, and 42.4% said they experienced pressure to return to work and a delay in promotions, both illegal practices under the FMLA.

The survey is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Childbearing is difficult for women in cardiology with more than double the rate of gestational complications of the U.S. population, frequent income loss out of proportion to reduced productivity, and for nearly half, has an adverse impact on their career,” lead author Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, said in a statement.

“While many professions struggle to create environments supportive of pregnancy and child-rearing, the prevalence of illegal behavior in cardiology is quite high and presents substantial legal risk for employers,” Dr. Gulati added.

C. Noel Bairey Merz, MD, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute, Los Angeles, and a coauthor of the survey, told this news organization that it’s not surprising that such a situation exists, even “in this day and age.”

“I’m not surprised as a woman in cardiology myself. I was told by my training director that if I took off more than my allowed sick leave when I had my first and second children, I would have to repeat the year of training, so not surprised at all. I hear this from colleagues all the time,” Dr. Bairey Merz said.

The exchange left her feeling fearful for her career.

“Who wants to repeat a year? It pushes you back from a career standpoint, financially, everything. It also made me angry. I had a colleague who busted his leg in a motorcycle accident. He was unable to do any procedures for 16 weeks, and he didn’t have to repeat the year,” she pointed out.

The challenge that pregnancy represents is frequently cited by women as a deterrent for applying for a cardiology fellowship, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The findings from the survey “reveal restrictive maternity leave data in a profession that has historically and currently continues to have a diversity problem,” they wrote.

“Maternity and pregnancy issues are a thing in cardiology,” Dr. Mehta said in an interview. “It’s one of the reasons why women get deterred from going into the field. It makes it challenging to choose cardiology if you perceive that the culture is negative, that it’s hard to be pregnant, or to bear children, or to take care of them post partum. It is problematic and it should not be occurring now.”

Leadership that condones such restrictive policies or even promotes them through ignorance and inaction needs to be held accountable, she added.

“We need to move forward from this negativity and make it more warm and welcoming to have families, whether you are a trainee or a practicing cardiologist, male or female. We need transparent and consistent parental leave policies and things like lactation support when a woman returns to work. That is a big issue,” Dr. Mehta said.

Having cardiovascular leaders champion the cause of adequate maternity and paternity leave are crucial to creating a newer, inclusive environment in cardiology.

As an example, Dr. Mehta recounted her own experience when she was in training 17 years ago.

“When I interviewed for a cardiology fellowship, one of the female program directors asked me if I was planning to have children, because if I did, the other fellows wouldn’t like it if they had to cover for me,” she said. “I ended up doing my fellowship where the chief of cardiology encouraged me to have children. He said: ‘Have your children during training, we will support you.’ And he did. I still had to do all of the call make-up and that stuff, but I worked in a supportive environment, and it made all the difference.”

“It’s about allyship,” she added. “You will have some people who are supportive and some who are not, but when you have the chief supporting you, you have a strong ally.”

The researchers suggest that one strategy is to temporarily replace cardiologists on maternity leave with locums, or “deepen the bench of coverage for clinical work, as is done for other absences. Given the expanding coverage of parental and family medical leaves, and awareness of these issues nationally, the need for this is likely to become less of an exception and more the rule.”

For example, nine states and Washington, D.C. now provide paid parental leave, they wrote, “and there is pending legislation in others.”

Dr. Bairey Merz and Dr. Mehta reported no relevant financial relationships.

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