Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Scientists have found the coronavirus in 29 kinds of animals, including household pets, livestock, and wildlife, according to researchers’ latest tally.

In most cases, humans infect animals, and animals don’t transmit the virus back to humans. But scientists have expressed concerns about recent research that shows some animals – such as mink and deer – appear to be able to spread the virus to humans.

In addition, the virus will likely continue to circulate in wild animals, which could lead to new mutations, some of which may make the virus less susceptible to people’s immunity from current vaccines. Researchers are calling for better surveillance of animals, especially in the wild, to track any new variants.

“It could be evolving in hosts we are not aware of,” Eman Anis, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Scientists have identified the virus in a growing list of animals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including cats, dogs, ferrets, gorillas, hamsters, hippos, hyenas, mice, otters, pigs, rabbits, and tigers. In many cases, humans spread the coronavirus to pets at home or to wildlife in zoos and sanctuaries.

In the study, published in bioRxiv, researchers identified a person who tested positive after close contact with infected white-tailed deer. The coronavirus had evolved dozens of mutations not found in other strains.

Even with the changes, the virus they found doesn’t appear different enough to evade current vaccines, the researchers reported. The vaccines target the spike protein on the outside of coronavirus cells, and the mutations that happened in deer occurred elsewhere in the virus.

At the same time, scientists have noted that this points to the need to step up monitoring in wild animals before mutations become a problem.

“This is no need to panic, but this is not something we can ignore,” Suresh Kuchipudi, PhD, a professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told the Inquirer.

Dr. Kuchipudi, who wasn’t involved with the Canadian study, has done other studies that found COVID-19 in deer. As the coronavirus continues to circulate in deer, more mutations will arise, he noted.

“It’s hard to predict what evolution’s going to come up with,” Frederic Bushman, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Inquirer.

“The virus will probably change different ways in different animals. Some of them probably won’t infect humans as well,” he said. “But the fear is that maybe some new one will come along that does infect humans well.”

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

Scientists have found the coronavirus in 29 kinds of animals, including household pets, livestock, and wildlife, according to researchers’ latest tally.

In most cases, humans infect animals, and animals don’t transmit the virus back to humans. But scientists have expressed concerns about recent research that shows some animals – such as mink and deer – appear to be able to spread the virus to humans.

In addition, the virus will likely continue to circulate in wild animals, which could lead to new mutations, some of which may make the virus less susceptible to people’s immunity from current vaccines. Researchers are calling for better surveillance of animals, especially in the wild, to track any new variants.

“It could be evolving in hosts we are not aware of,” Eman Anis, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Scientists have identified the virus in a growing list of animals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including cats, dogs, ferrets, gorillas, hamsters, hippos, hyenas, mice, otters, pigs, rabbits, and tigers. In many cases, humans spread the coronavirus to pets at home or to wildlife in zoos and sanctuaries.

In the study, published in bioRxiv, researchers identified a person who tested positive after close contact with infected white-tailed deer. The coronavirus had evolved dozens of mutations not found in other strains.

Even with the changes, the virus they found doesn’t appear different enough to evade current vaccines, the researchers reported. The vaccines target the spike protein on the outside of coronavirus cells, and the mutations that happened in deer occurred elsewhere in the virus.

At the same time, scientists have noted that this points to the need to step up monitoring in wild animals before mutations become a problem.

“This is no need to panic, but this is not something we can ignore,” Suresh Kuchipudi, PhD, a professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told the Inquirer.

Dr. Kuchipudi, who wasn’t involved with the Canadian study, has done other studies that found COVID-19 in deer. As the coronavirus continues to circulate in deer, more mutations will arise, he noted.

“It’s hard to predict what evolution’s going to come up with,” Frederic Bushman, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Inquirer.

“The virus will probably change different ways in different animals. Some of them probably won’t infect humans as well,” he said. “But the fear is that maybe some new one will come along that does infect humans well.”

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

Scientists have found the coronavirus in 29 kinds of animals, including household pets, livestock, and wildlife, according to researchers’ latest tally.

In most cases, humans infect animals, and animals don’t transmit the virus back to humans. But scientists have expressed concerns about recent research that shows some animals – such as mink and deer – appear to be able to spread the virus to humans.

In addition, the virus will likely continue to circulate in wild animals, which could lead to new mutations, some of which may make the virus less susceptible to people’s immunity from current vaccines. Researchers are calling for better surveillance of animals, especially in the wild, to track any new variants.

“It could be evolving in hosts we are not aware of,” Eman Anis, PhD, an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Scientists have identified the virus in a growing list of animals, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including cats, dogs, ferrets, gorillas, hamsters, hippos, hyenas, mice, otters, pigs, rabbits, and tigers. In many cases, humans spread the coronavirus to pets at home or to wildlife in zoos and sanctuaries.

In the study, published in bioRxiv, researchers identified a person who tested positive after close contact with infected white-tailed deer. The coronavirus had evolved dozens of mutations not found in other strains.

Even with the changes, the virus they found doesn’t appear different enough to evade current vaccines, the researchers reported. The vaccines target the spike protein on the outside of coronavirus cells, and the mutations that happened in deer occurred elsewhere in the virus.

At the same time, scientists have noted that this points to the need to step up monitoring in wild animals before mutations become a problem.

“This is no need to panic, but this is not something we can ignore,” Suresh Kuchipudi, PhD, a professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, told the Inquirer.

Dr. Kuchipudi, who wasn’t involved with the Canadian study, has done other studies that found COVID-19 in deer. As the coronavirus continues to circulate in deer, more mutations will arise, he noted.

“It’s hard to predict what evolution’s going to come up with,” Frederic Bushman, a microbiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told the Inquirer.

“The virus will probably change different ways in different animals. Some of them probably won’t infect humans as well,” he said. “But the fear is that maybe some new one will come along that does infect humans well.”

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab for neoadjuvant treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, regardless of PDL-1 status.

Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor to be approved for resectable NSCLC; its three prior NSCLC indications are for metastatic disease, the agency said in its announcement. 

Approval was based on the CheckMate 816 trial, which randomized 358 patients evenly to either nivolumab plus platinum doublets or to platinum doublets alone every 3 weeks for up to 3 cycles.

Trial participants had histologically confirmed stage IB, II, or IIIA disease, which was measurable by RECIST criteria. They were enrolled regardless of tumor PD-L1 status.

At surgery, the pathologic complete response rate was 24% in the nivolumab arm versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-alone group.

Median event-free survival was 31.6 months with nivolumab but 20.8 months without it, which translated to a 37% reduction in the risk for progression, recurrence, or death following surgery. A trend toward better overall survival was not statistically significant, Bristol Myers Squibb said in its own announcement.

Nivolumab’s new neoadjuvant indication is for adult patients with resectable NSCLC (tumors greater than or equal to 4 cm or node positive). The recommended dosage is 360 mg in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy on the same day every 3 weeks for three cycles.

In a press release from Bristol Myers Squibb, CheckMate 816 investigator and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute thoracic oncologist Mark Awad, MD, PhD, called the approval “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

Patients with known EGFR mutations or ALK translocations, grade 2 or higher peripheral neuropathy, active autoimmune disease, or medical conditions requiring systemic immunosuppression were excluded.

There were no fatal adverse events in the nivolumab arm, but 30% of participants had serious adverse events, most commonly pneumonia and vomiting.

The most common side effects across all grades were nausea (38%), constipation (34%), fatigue (26%), decreased appetite (20%), and rash (20%). Surgical complications and hospital lengths were similar between the two study groups.

Rival checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab is also being investigated for neoadjuvant NSCLC.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab for neoadjuvant treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, regardless of PDL-1 status.

Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor to be approved for resectable NSCLC; its three prior NSCLC indications are for metastatic disease, the agency said in its announcement. 

Approval was based on the CheckMate 816 trial, which randomized 358 patients evenly to either nivolumab plus platinum doublets or to platinum doublets alone every 3 weeks for up to 3 cycles.

Trial participants had histologically confirmed stage IB, II, or IIIA disease, which was measurable by RECIST criteria. They were enrolled regardless of tumor PD-L1 status.

At surgery, the pathologic complete response rate was 24% in the nivolumab arm versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-alone group.

Median event-free survival was 31.6 months with nivolumab but 20.8 months without it, which translated to a 37% reduction in the risk for progression, recurrence, or death following surgery. A trend toward better overall survival was not statistically significant, Bristol Myers Squibb said in its own announcement.

Nivolumab’s new neoadjuvant indication is for adult patients with resectable NSCLC (tumors greater than or equal to 4 cm or node positive). The recommended dosage is 360 mg in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy on the same day every 3 weeks for three cycles.

In a press release from Bristol Myers Squibb, CheckMate 816 investigator and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute thoracic oncologist Mark Awad, MD, PhD, called the approval “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

Patients with known EGFR mutations or ALK translocations, grade 2 or higher peripheral neuropathy, active autoimmune disease, or medical conditions requiring systemic immunosuppression were excluded.

There were no fatal adverse events in the nivolumab arm, but 30% of participants had serious adverse events, most commonly pneumonia and vomiting.

The most common side effects across all grades were nausea (38%), constipation (34%), fatigue (26%), decreased appetite (20%), and rash (20%). Surgical complications and hospital lengths were similar between the two study groups.

Rival checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab is also being investigated for neoadjuvant NSCLC.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved nivolumab for neoadjuvant treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy, regardless of PDL-1 status.

Nivolumab is the first immune checkpoint inhibitor to be approved for resectable NSCLC; its three prior NSCLC indications are for metastatic disease, the agency said in its announcement. 

Approval was based on the CheckMate 816 trial, which randomized 358 patients evenly to either nivolumab plus platinum doublets or to platinum doublets alone every 3 weeks for up to 3 cycles.

Trial participants had histologically confirmed stage IB, II, or IIIA disease, which was measurable by RECIST criteria. They were enrolled regardless of tumor PD-L1 status.

At surgery, the pathologic complete response rate was 24% in the nivolumab arm versus 2.2% in the chemotherapy-alone group.

Median event-free survival was 31.6 months with nivolumab but 20.8 months without it, which translated to a 37% reduction in the risk for progression, recurrence, or death following surgery. A trend toward better overall survival was not statistically significant, Bristol Myers Squibb said in its own announcement.

Nivolumab’s new neoadjuvant indication is for adult patients with resectable NSCLC (tumors greater than or equal to 4 cm or node positive). The recommended dosage is 360 mg in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy on the same day every 3 weeks for three cycles.

In a press release from Bristol Myers Squibb, CheckMate 816 investigator and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute thoracic oncologist Mark Awad, MD, PhD, called the approval “a turning point in how we treat resectable NSCLC.”

Patients with known EGFR mutations or ALK translocations, grade 2 or higher peripheral neuropathy, active autoimmune disease, or medical conditions requiring systemic immunosuppression were excluded.

There were no fatal adverse events in the nivolumab arm, but 30% of participants had serious adverse events, most commonly pneumonia and vomiting.

The most common side effects across all grades were nausea (38%), constipation (34%), fatigue (26%), decreased appetite (20%), and rash (20%). Surgical complications and hospital lengths were similar between the two study groups.

Rival checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab is also being investigated for neoadjuvant NSCLC.

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

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.

Compared with control treatment among critically ill adults, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published in CHEST. The analysis showed also that risk of DVT may be reduced by unfractionated heparin (UFH) and by mechanical compressive devices, although LMWH should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis.

Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE), is heightened in critically ill patients. VTE incidence is highest in major surgery and trauma patients, and mortality estimates from PE among intensive care unit patients are as high as 12%. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prophylaxis with pharmacologic agents over no prophylaxis in critically ill adults. Shannon M. Fernando, MD, of the University of Ottawa and colleagues examined the comparative efficacy and safety of various agents for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients through a review of 13 RCTs (9,619 patients) in six databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Webof Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The ICU patients received a variety of therapies including pharmacologic, mechanical, or their combination for thromboprophylaxis. The control population consisted of a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only.
 

Indicative results

Analysis showed LMWH to reduce the incidence of DVT (odds ratio, 0.59; high certainty), while UFH may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82; low certainty). Compared with UFH, LMWH probably reduces DVT (OR, 0.72; moderate certainty). Compressive devices, based on low-certainty evidence, may reduce risk of DVT, compared with control treatments (OR, 0.85).

The effect of combination therapy on DVT, compared with either therapy alone was unclear (very low certainty). The large-scale (2,000 patients) PREVENT trial in 2019, Dr. Fernando noted in an interview, found that adding compression therapy to pharmacologic therapy produced no reduction in proximal lower limb DVT.

“Ultimately, I think that, even if multiple RCTs and subsequent meta-analyses were performed, at best we would find that the incremental benefit of combination therapy is very minimal,” Dr. Fernando stated.

The findings provide evidence supporting LMWH and UFH use as compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis for prevention of DVT, according to the researchers. While a similar certainty of effect in reducing PE was not found, evidence with moderate certainty suggested that LMWH and UFH probably reduce the incidence of any VTE, compared with no pharmacologic prophylaxis. Cost-effectiveness modeling that takes into account VTE incidence supports the practice. “If you’re reducing the incidence of DVT, it’s likely you’re similarly reducing incidence of PE, though I will agree that currently the data do not support this,” he said in an interview.

Noting that, while support in existing literature for any specific agent is controversial, the authors cite that American Society of Hematology guidelines suggest considering LMWH over UFH in critically ill patients, and that their findings lend support to that position. Regarding safety, pair-wise meta-analysis did not reveal clear major bleeding incidence differences between UFH and LMWH.
 

In and out of the ICU

Concordant with studies outside the ICU finding that heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) incidence is lower among patients receiving LMWH rather than UFH for VTE prophylaxis, the meta-analysis revealed a lower incidence of HIT among the critically ill receiving LMWH, but with evidence that was of low certainty.

Uncertainty around the optimal approach to VTE prophylaxis in the ICU along with wide variations in clinical practice persist despite recognition of the issue’s importance, note Major Michael J. McMahon, MD, of Honolulu and Colonel Aaron B. Holley, MD, of Bethesda, Md., authors of an accompanying editorial, “To generalize or not to generalize? The approach to VTE prophylaxis”. They acknowledge also that the Fernando et al. analysis yields important insights into VTE prevention in the ICU. Rhetorically raising the question, “Can we now say without doubt that LMWH is the preferred agent for all patients in the ICU?” – they responded, “probably.” Not entirely eliminated, they observe, is the possibility that a specific patient subgroup may benefit from one agent compared with another. They add, “We came away more confident that LMWH should be the default choice for VTE prevention in the ICU.”

Dr. Fernando and coauthors listed multiple disclosures, but declared that they received no financial support. Dr. McMahon and Dr. Holley declared that they have no disclosures.

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

A former pain medicine physician received a sentence of 20 years in prison for selling opioids and writing prescriptions for patients who were abusing or diverting the medications.

Patrick Titus, 58, operated Lighthouse Internal Medicine in Milford, Delaware, from 2005-2014.

Federal prosecutors said Mr. Titus unlawfully distributed or dispensed opioids including fentanyl, morphine, methadone, OxyContin, and oxycodone outside the scope of practice and often prescribed them in combination with each other or in other dangerous combinations. Mr. Titus distributed over 1 million pills, said the government.

In a 2018 indictment, the government said that Mr. Titus would, “at the first and nearly every follow-up visit” prescribe opioids in high dosages, often without conducting an exam or reviewing any urine test results. He would also write prescriptions for opioids without getting patients’s prior medical records or reviewing test results and rarely referred patients to alternative pain treatments such as physical therapy, psychotherapy, or massage.

According to the indictment, he ignored “red flags,” including that patients would come from long distances, sometimes from out of state, and would pay cash, despite having Medicaid coverage.

“Today’s sentencing makes clear that medical professionals who recklessly prescribe opioids and endanger the safety and health of patients will be held accountable,” said Anne Milgram, a Drug Enforcement Administration administrator.

“This sentence is a reminder that the Department of Justice will hold accountable those doctors who are illegitimately prescribing opioids and fueling the country’s opioid crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr., of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, in the same statement. “Doctors who commit these unlawful acts exploit their roles as stewards of their patients’s care for their own profit,” he added.

The sentence follows Mr. Titus’s 2-week jury trial in 2021, when he was convicted of 13 counts of unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances and one count of maintaining his practice primarily as a location to sell drugs. Mr. Titus faced a maximum of 20 years per count.

At the time of his conviction, Mr. Titus’s attorney said he planned to appeal, according to Delaware Online.

Delaware suspended Mr. Titus’s registration to prescribe controlled substances for 1 year in 2011. At the time, the state said it had determined that his continued prescribing “poses [an] imminent danger to the public health or safety.”

The state found that from January to November 2011, Mr. Titus issued 3,941 prescriptions for almost 750,000 pills for 17 different controlled substances, all sent to a single pharmacy.

The state also alleged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances to patients with felony convictions for drug trafficking and to at least one patient who his staff told him was selling the opioid that Mr. Titus had prescribed. It later determined that Mr. Titus continued prescribing even after it had suspended his DEA registration.

According to a 2014 consent agreement, the state subsequently ordered another 1-year suspension of his DEA registration, to be followed by a 3-year probation period.

Meanwhile, the same year, the state Board of Medical Licensure put Mr. Titus’s medical license on probation for 2 years and ordered him to complete 15 continuing medical education credits in medical recordkeeping, ethics, how to detect diversion and abuse, and in some other areas, and to pay a $7,500 fine.

In 2016, the medical board revoked Mr. Titus’s license, after finding that he continued to prescribe pain medications to patients he did not screen or monitor and for a multitude of other infractions.

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

“Adipose tissue is an underappreciated and misunderstood organ.” It’s with these words that Aaron M. Cypess, MD, PhD, begins his recent review published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As obesity rates steadily rise, “the riskiest approach to human adipose tissue is to dismiss its importance,” he adds, especially because there has been “an explosive growth” in our understanding of white and brown adipose tissue over the past 5 to 10 years.

This news organization asked Dr. Cypess, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientist whose research focuses on brown fat, to discuss some of the main points in his review, titled, “Reassessing Human Adipose Tissue,” and clear up some misconceptions about fat.

You write that, for people who struggle to lose weight, “fat is often a source of misery, not marvel.” Why is fat a marvel?

When I started medical school in 1992, fat was just a thing that stored calories. You had to get it out of the way when you operated on the stomach or intestines. Now we know it’s not just one cell, it’s multiple types of cells, including immune cells and some blood cells. There’s cell turnover, and cells can get bigger or smaller, so it’s a dynamic tissue. It impacts the immune system and affects insulin sensitivity.

Why use the term “adipose tissue” and not just “fat”?

People think of fat cells and that’s it. However, adipose tissue (fat) has multiple cell types, and they each matter. There are adipocytes (fat cells) – which can be white, brown, beige, or pink – as well as immune cells, fibroblasts, blood vessels, and parts of nerve cells.

The main function of white adipose tissue is to store energy in the form of triglycerides. Brown adipose tissue consumes glucose and triglycerides, generating heat. Brown fat cells within depots of white fat are termed brite cells (a portmanteau of brown and white) or beige cells. Pink fat cells have been found in breast tissue in mice.

What do we now know about white fat and brown fat? Can brown fat change to white fat or vice versa?

White adipose tissue is commonly separated into visceral fat and subcutaneous fat, which have negative and neutral or positive metabolic effects, respectively. It is capable of more than doubling in mass and then returning to baseline.

White adipocyte-derived hormones include leptin, which is low in starvation, and adiponectin, which regulates glucose and lipid metabolism. White adipose tissue is essential for the proper function of the reproductive system, including secretion of hormones and lactation.

Brown adipose tissue protects newborns from cold as they develop the ability to shiver, and in adults it is found in depots in the neck, shoulders, posterior thorax, and abdomen. The amount of brown adipose tissue varies according to sex and lowers with increasing age and increasing body mass index.

There is much more white fat in the body than brown fat. It appears that activating brown fat leads to beneficial effects on metabolism, though we don’t know yet all the steps for how that happens.

In mice, you’ve got white fat depots and brown fat depots, and some brown fat can be found in the white fat.

With humans it’s much more complicated, and I’ve seen this in the operating room myself, and on slides. Where you find brown fat cells you also find a certain proportion of white fat cells, not an exclusive brown fat depot like you see in a mouse.

It is hotly debated right now whether brown fat can change to white fat and vice versa (transdifferentiation). The beige fat cells are supposed to be the kind that can shuttle between more white-like or brown-like. They can sometimes be white or sometimes brown. It can be very contentious in [scientific] papers and meetings.

Are humans born with all the fat cells they will ever have?

No. New fat cells are made throughout our lives. When the white adipocytes store too much triglyceride, they get really big and they get “sick” and die faster. It’s the rate at which the white cells take up the fat to store it and then get rid of it that can impact whether someone gains a lot of weight and whether they can successfully lose it after reasonable effort.

The average lifespan of a white fat cell is 15 years. We have no idea yet of the lifespan of a brown fat cell.

Is there a single “fat gene”? What role do fat genes play in the likelihood of developing metabolic diseases and type 2 diabetes?

Genes are very important for influencing the development of obesity and probably influence 50%-70% of obesity, based on studies in populations of predominantly European origin. But that high percentage reflects the impact of hundreds of genes. For most people, there is no one gene that exerts all of the effects. There are extremely rare diseases where one gene is responsible. Currently, only 20% of the entire phenotypic variation in obesity can be explained by the thousands of loci identified so far.

Why is it “correct but too simplistic” to attribute the increasing rates of obesity to excessive triglyceride storage in white adipose tissue?

Saying obesity is caused by too much triglyceride storage ignores the reasons how and why the triglycerides got there. There are likely to be multiple contributing factors to drive obesity, and those have billions of dollars of policy implications. Is obesity resulting from portion sizes? Then we should work on educating the public on how to estimate their caloric intake. Is it the types of foods, such as ultra-processed foods? Then we can discourage eating certain food groups while promoting others. Is it about physical activity? Then we should prioritize exercise programs.

Why is obesity “not simply a failure of will power”?

Genetic factors in adipose tissue impact how easy it is to store triglycerides, how easy it is to get fat out of the tissue and burn it up, and what kinds of hormones are released by the tissue to regulate appetite, insulin resistance, and inflammation. Ten different people can all overeat the same amount of the same foods, yet there will be differences in the amount of weight gain and metabolic complications experienced. And at the brain level, some people will feel “full” sooner than others.

How can excess adipose tissue lead to disease? Do some people have “metabolically healthy obesity”?

Excess adipose tissue leads to chronic inflammation that can then cause insulin resistance, hypertension, fatty liver disease, and other complications. It appears that there are metabolically healthy obese people, but it is not clear if that is only a temporary state.

Could long-term brown adipose tissue activation help treat obesity or related metabolic disease?

Our research group at the NIH and others have shown that long-term brown adipose tissue activation produces metabolic benefit such as improved insulin resistance, lower plasma glucose, and higher HDL [good] cholesterol. However, there is no evidence yet that it will lead to actual weight loss.

We are trying to use brown adipose tissue activation to treat obesity-related metabolic disease to see if it could lead to reduction in inflammation, improvement in the cholesterol profile, and decrease in blood pressure.

A large observational study published Jan. 4, 2021, in Nature Medicine by Paul Cohen’s group at Rockefeller University, in tens of thousands of people at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, showed that people who had brown fat were generally healthier and had less high blood pressure and less cardiovascular disease. This study could not show causation, but at every BMI, people were healthier if they had more brown fat than if they had less. So, there’s something going on. We’re still trying to figure that out.

Dr. Cypess has no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Adipose tissue is an underappreciated and misunderstood organ.” It’s with these words that Aaron M. Cypess, MD, PhD, begins his recent review published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As obesity rates steadily rise, “the riskiest approach to human adipose tissue is to dismiss its importance,” he adds, especially because there has been “an explosive growth” in our understanding of white and brown adipose tissue over the past 5 to 10 years.

This news organization asked Dr. Cypess, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientist whose research focuses on brown fat, to discuss some of the main points in his review, titled, “Reassessing Human Adipose Tissue,” and clear up some misconceptions about fat.

You write that, for people who struggle to lose weight, “fat is often a source of misery, not marvel.” Why is fat a marvel?

When I started medical school in 1992, fat was just a thing that stored calories. You had to get it out of the way when you operated on the stomach or intestines. Now we know it’s not just one cell, it’s multiple types of cells, including immune cells and some blood cells. There’s cell turnover, and cells can get bigger or smaller, so it’s a dynamic tissue. It impacts the immune system and affects insulin sensitivity.

Why use the term “adipose tissue” and not just “fat”?

People think of fat cells and that’s it. However, adipose tissue (fat) has multiple cell types, and they each matter. There are adipocytes (fat cells) – which can be white, brown, beige, or pink – as well as immune cells, fibroblasts, blood vessels, and parts of nerve cells.

The main function of white adipose tissue is to store energy in the form of triglycerides. Brown adipose tissue consumes glucose and triglycerides, generating heat. Brown fat cells within depots of white fat are termed brite cells (a portmanteau of brown and white) or beige cells. Pink fat cells have been found in breast tissue in mice.

What do we now know about white fat and brown fat? Can brown fat change to white fat or vice versa?

White adipose tissue is commonly separated into visceral fat and subcutaneous fat, which have negative and neutral or positive metabolic effects, respectively. It is capable of more than doubling in mass and then returning to baseline.

White adipocyte-derived hormones include leptin, which is low in starvation, and adiponectin, which regulates glucose and lipid metabolism. White adipose tissue is essential for the proper function of the reproductive system, including secretion of hormones and lactation.

Brown adipose tissue protects newborns from cold as they develop the ability to shiver, and in adults it is found in depots in the neck, shoulders, posterior thorax, and abdomen. The amount of brown adipose tissue varies according to sex and lowers with increasing age and increasing body mass index.

There is much more white fat in the body than brown fat. It appears that activating brown fat leads to beneficial effects on metabolism, though we don’t know yet all the steps for how that happens.

In mice, you’ve got white fat depots and brown fat depots, and some brown fat can be found in the white fat.

With humans it’s much more complicated, and I’ve seen this in the operating room myself, and on slides. Where you find brown fat cells you also find a certain proportion of white fat cells, not an exclusive brown fat depot like you see in a mouse.

It is hotly debated right now whether brown fat can change to white fat and vice versa (transdifferentiation). The beige fat cells are supposed to be the kind that can shuttle between more white-like or brown-like. They can sometimes be white or sometimes brown. It can be very contentious in [scientific] papers and meetings.

Are humans born with all the fat cells they will ever have?

No. New fat cells are made throughout our lives. When the white adipocytes store too much triglyceride, they get really big and they get “sick” and die faster. It’s the rate at which the white cells take up the fat to store it and then get rid of it that can impact whether someone gains a lot of weight and whether they can successfully lose it after reasonable effort.

The average lifespan of a white fat cell is 15 years. We have no idea yet of the lifespan of a brown fat cell.

Is there a single “fat gene”? What role do fat genes play in the likelihood of developing metabolic diseases and type 2 diabetes?

Genes are very important for influencing the development of obesity and probably influence 50%-70% of obesity, based on studies in populations of predominantly European origin. But that high percentage reflects the impact of hundreds of genes. For most people, there is no one gene that exerts all of the effects. There are extremely rare diseases where one gene is responsible. Currently, only 20% of the entire phenotypic variation in obesity can be explained by the thousands of loci identified so far.

Why is it “correct but too simplistic” to attribute the increasing rates of obesity to excessive triglyceride storage in white adipose tissue?

Saying obesity is caused by too much triglyceride storage ignores the reasons how and why the triglycerides got there. There are likely to be multiple contributing factors to drive obesity, and those have billions of dollars of policy implications. Is obesity resulting from portion sizes? Then we should work on educating the public on how to estimate their caloric intake. Is it the types of foods, such as ultra-processed foods? Then we can discourage eating certain food groups while promoting others. Is it about physical activity? Then we should prioritize exercise programs.

Why is obesity “not simply a failure of will power”?

Genetic factors in adipose tissue impact how easy it is to store triglycerides, how easy it is to get fat out of the tissue and burn it up, and what kinds of hormones are released by the tissue to regulate appetite, insulin resistance, and inflammation. Ten different people can all overeat the same amount of the same foods, yet there will be differences in the amount of weight gain and metabolic complications experienced. And at the brain level, some people will feel “full” sooner than others.

How can excess adipose tissue lead to disease? Do some people have “metabolically healthy obesity”?

Excess adipose tissue leads to chronic inflammation that can then cause insulin resistance, hypertension, fatty liver disease, and other complications. It appears that there are metabolically healthy obese people, but it is not clear if that is only a temporary state.

Could long-term brown adipose tissue activation help treat obesity or related metabolic disease?

Our research group at the NIH and others have shown that long-term brown adipose tissue activation produces metabolic benefit such as improved insulin resistance, lower plasma glucose, and higher HDL [good] cholesterol. However, there is no evidence yet that it will lead to actual weight loss.

We are trying to use brown adipose tissue activation to treat obesity-related metabolic disease to see if it could lead to reduction in inflammation, improvement in the cholesterol profile, and decrease in blood pressure.

A large observational study published Jan. 4, 2021, in Nature Medicine by Paul Cohen’s group at Rockefeller University, in tens of thousands of people at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, showed that people who had brown fat were generally healthier and had less high blood pressure and less cardiovascular disease. This study could not show causation, but at every BMI, people were healthier if they had more brown fat than if they had less. So, there’s something going on. We’re still trying to figure that out.

Dr. Cypess has no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Adipose tissue is an underappreciated and misunderstood organ.” It’s with these words that Aaron M. Cypess, MD, PhD, begins his recent review published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As obesity rates steadily rise, “the riskiest approach to human adipose tissue is to dismiss its importance,” he adds, especially because there has been “an explosive growth” in our understanding of white and brown adipose tissue over the past 5 to 10 years.

This news organization asked Dr. Cypess, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientist whose research focuses on brown fat, to discuss some of the main points in his review, titled, “Reassessing Human Adipose Tissue,” and clear up some misconceptions about fat.

You write that, for people who struggle to lose weight, “fat is often a source of misery, not marvel.” Why is fat a marvel?

When I started medical school in 1992, fat was just a thing that stored calories. You had to get it out of the way when you operated on the stomach or intestines. Now we know it’s not just one cell, it’s multiple types of cells, including immune cells and some blood cells. There’s cell turnover, and cells can get bigger or smaller, so it’s a dynamic tissue. It impacts the immune system and affects insulin sensitivity.

Why use the term “adipose tissue” and not just “fat”?

People think of fat cells and that’s it. However, adipose tissue (fat) has multiple cell types, and they each matter. There are adipocytes (fat cells) – which can be white, brown, beige, or pink – as well as immune cells, fibroblasts, blood vessels, and parts of nerve cells.

The main function of white adipose tissue is to store energy in the form of triglycerides. Brown adipose tissue consumes glucose and triglycerides, generating heat. Brown fat cells within depots of white fat are termed brite cells (a portmanteau of brown and white) or beige cells. Pink fat cells have been found in breast tissue in mice.

What do we now know about white fat and brown fat? Can brown fat change to white fat or vice versa?

White adipose tissue is commonly separated into visceral fat and subcutaneous fat, which have negative and neutral or positive metabolic effects, respectively. It is capable of more than doubling in mass and then returning to baseline.

White adipocyte-derived hormones include leptin, which is low in starvation, and adiponectin, which regulates glucose and lipid metabolism. White adipose tissue is essential for the proper function of the reproductive system, including secretion of hormones and lactation.

Brown adipose tissue protects newborns from cold as they develop the ability to shiver, and in adults it is found in depots in the neck, shoulders, posterior thorax, and abdomen. The amount of brown adipose tissue varies according to sex and lowers with increasing age and increasing body mass index.

There is much more white fat in the body than brown fat. It appears that activating brown fat leads to beneficial effects on metabolism, though we don’t know yet all the steps for how that happens.

In mice, you’ve got white fat depots and brown fat depots, and some brown fat can be found in the white fat.

With humans it’s much more complicated, and I’ve seen this in the operating room myself, and on slides. Where you find brown fat cells you also find a certain proportion of white fat cells, not an exclusive brown fat depot like you see in a mouse.

It is hotly debated right now whether brown fat can change to white fat and vice versa (transdifferentiation). The beige fat cells are supposed to be the kind that can shuttle between more white-like or brown-like. They can sometimes be white or sometimes brown. It can be very contentious in [scientific] papers and meetings.

Are humans born with all the fat cells they will ever have?

No. New fat cells are made throughout our lives. When the white adipocytes store too much triglyceride, they get really big and they get “sick” and die faster. It’s the rate at which the white cells take up the fat to store it and then get rid of it that can impact whether someone gains a lot of weight and whether they can successfully lose it after reasonable effort.

The average lifespan of a white fat cell is 15 years. We have no idea yet of the lifespan of a brown fat cell.

Is there a single “fat gene”? What role do fat genes play in the likelihood of developing metabolic diseases and type 2 diabetes?

Genes are very important for influencing the development of obesity and probably influence 50%-70% of obesity, based on studies in populations of predominantly European origin. But that high percentage reflects the impact of hundreds of genes. For most people, there is no one gene that exerts all of the effects. There are extremely rare diseases where one gene is responsible. Currently, only 20% of the entire phenotypic variation in obesity can be explained by the thousands of loci identified so far.

Why is it “correct but too simplistic” to attribute the increasing rates of obesity to excessive triglyceride storage in white adipose tissue?

Saying obesity is caused by too much triglyceride storage ignores the reasons how and why the triglycerides got there. There are likely to be multiple contributing factors to drive obesity, and those have billions of dollars of policy implications. Is obesity resulting from portion sizes? Then we should work on educating the public on how to estimate their caloric intake. Is it the types of foods, such as ultra-processed foods? Then we can discourage eating certain food groups while promoting others. Is it about physical activity? Then we should prioritize exercise programs.

Why is obesity “not simply a failure of will power”?

Genetic factors in adipose tissue impact how easy it is to store triglycerides, how easy it is to get fat out of the tissue and burn it up, and what kinds of hormones are released by the tissue to regulate appetite, insulin resistance, and inflammation. Ten different people can all overeat the same amount of the same foods, yet there will be differences in the amount of weight gain and metabolic complications experienced. And at the brain level, some people will feel “full” sooner than others.

How can excess adipose tissue lead to disease? Do some people have “metabolically healthy obesity”?

Excess adipose tissue leads to chronic inflammation that can then cause insulin resistance, hypertension, fatty liver disease, and other complications. It appears that there are metabolically healthy obese people, but it is not clear if that is only a temporary state.

Could long-term brown adipose tissue activation help treat obesity or related metabolic disease?

Our research group at the NIH and others have shown that long-term brown adipose tissue activation produces metabolic benefit such as improved insulin resistance, lower plasma glucose, and higher HDL [good] cholesterol. However, there is no evidence yet that it will lead to actual weight loss.

We are trying to use brown adipose tissue activation to treat obesity-related metabolic disease to see if it could lead to reduction in inflammation, improvement in the cholesterol profile, and decrease in blood pressure.

A large observational study published Jan. 4, 2021, in Nature Medicine by Paul Cohen’s group at Rockefeller University, in tens of thousands of people at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, showed that people who had brown fat were generally healthier and had less high blood pressure and less cardiovascular disease. This study could not show causation, but at every BMI, people were healthier if they had more brown fat than if they had less. So, there’s something going on. We’re still trying to figure that out.

Dr. Cypess has no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who don’t get enough sleep during the week may be able to reduce their risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by catching up on the weekends, researchers say.

“Our study revealed that people who get enough sleep have a lower risk of developing NAFLD than those who get insufficient sleep,” Sangheun Lee, MD, PhD, from Catholic Kwandong University, Incheon, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Hepatology.

However, they cautioned that further research is needed to verify their finding.

Previous studies have associated insufficient sleep with obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as well as liver fibrosis.

A busy weekday schedule can make it harder to get enough sleep, and some people try to compensate by sleeping longer on weekends. Studies so far have produced mixed findings on this strategy, with some showing that more sleep on the weekend reduces the risk for obesity, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome, and others showing no effect on metabolic dysregulation or energy balance.
 

Accessing a nation’s sleep data

To explore the relationship between sleep patterns and NAFLD, Dr. Lee and colleagues analyzed data from Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys collected from 2008 to 2019. They excluded people aged less than 20 years, those with hepatitis B or C infections, liver cirrhosis or liver cancer, shift workers and others who “slept irregularly,” and those who consumed alcohol excessively, leaving a cohort of 101,138 participants.

The survey didn’t distinguish between sleep on weekdays and weekends until 2016, so the researchers divided their findings into two: 68,759 people surveyed from 2008 to 2015 (set 1) and 32,379 surveyed from 2016 to 2019 (set 2).

Set 1 was further divided into those who averaged more than 7 hours of sleep per day and those who slept less than that. Set 2 was divided into three groups: one that averaged less than 7 hours of sleep per day and did not catch up on weekends, one that averaged less than 7 hours of sleep per day and did catch up on weekends, and one that averaged more than 7 hours of sleep throughout the week.

The researchers used the hepatic steatosis index (HSI) to determine the presence of a fatty liver, calculated as 8 x (ratio of serum ALT to serum AST) + body mass index (+ 2 for female, + 2 in case of diabetes). An HSI of at least36 was considered an indicator of fatty liver.
 

Less sleep, more risk

Participants in set 1 slept for a mean of 6.8 hours, with 58.6% sleeping more than 7 hours a day. Those in set 2 slept a mean of 6.9 hours during weekdays, with 59.9% sleeping more than 7 hours. They also slept a mean of 7.7 hours on weekends.

In set 1, sleeping at least7 hours was associated with a 16% lower risk for NAFLD (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.89).

In set 2, sleeping at least 7 hours on weekdays was associated with a 19% reduced risk for NAFLD (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89). Sleeping at least 7 hours on the weekend was associated with a 22% reduced risk for NAFLD (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87). Compared with those who slept less than 7 hours throughout the week, those who slept less than 7 hours on weekdays and more than 7 hours on weekends had a 20% lower rate of NAFLD (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92).

All these associations held true for both men and women.
 

Why getting your Z’s may have hepatic advantages

One explanation for the link between sleep patterns and NAFLD is that dysregulation of cortisol, inflammatory cytokines, and norepinephrine are associated with both variations in sleep and NAFLD onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

They also pointed out that a lack of sleep can reduce the secretion of two hormones that promote satiety: leptin and glucagonlike peptide–1. As a result, people who sleep less may eat more and gain weight, which increases the risk for NAFLD.

Ashwani K. Singal, MD, MS, a professor of medicine at the University of South Dakota, Vermillion, who was not involved in the study, noted that it was based on comparing a cross section of a population instead of following the participants over time.

“So, I think it’s an association rather than a cause and effect,” he said in an interview.

The authors don’t report a multivariate analysis to determine whether comorbidities or other characteristics of the patients could explain the association, he pointed out, noting that obesity, for example, can increase the risk for both NAFLD and sleep apnea.

Still, Dr. Singal said, the paper will influence him to mention sleep in the context of lifestyle factors that can affect fatty liver disease. “I’m going to tell my patients, and tell the community physicians to tell their patients, to follow a good sleep hygiene and make sure that they sleep at least 5-7 hours.”

Dr. Singal and the study authors all reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea.

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

People who don’t get enough sleep during the week may be able to reduce their risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by catching up on the weekends, researchers say.

“Our study revealed that people who get enough sleep have a lower risk of developing NAFLD than those who get insufficient sleep,” Sangheun Lee, MD, PhD, from Catholic Kwandong University, Incheon, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Hepatology.

However, they cautioned that further research is needed to verify their finding.

Previous studies have associated insufficient sleep with obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as well as liver fibrosis.

A busy weekday schedule can make it harder to get enough sleep, and some people try to compensate by sleeping longer on weekends. Studies so far have produced mixed findings on this strategy, with some showing that more sleep on the weekend reduces the risk for obesity, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome, and others showing no effect on metabolic dysregulation or energy balance.
 

Accessing a nation’s sleep data

To explore the relationship between sleep patterns and NAFLD, Dr. Lee and colleagues analyzed data from Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys collected from 2008 to 2019. They excluded people aged less than 20 years, those with hepatitis B or C infections, liver cirrhosis or liver cancer, shift workers and others who “slept irregularly,” and those who consumed alcohol excessively, leaving a cohort of 101,138 participants.

The survey didn’t distinguish between sleep on weekdays and weekends until 2016, so the researchers divided their findings into two: 68,759 people surveyed from 2008 to 2015 (set 1) and 32,379 surveyed from 2016 to 2019 (set 2).

Set 1 was further divided into those who averaged more than 7 hours of sleep per day and those who slept less than that. Set 2 was divided into three groups: one that averaged less than 7 hours of sleep per day and did not catch up on weekends, one that averaged less than 7 hours of sleep per day and did catch up on weekends, and one that averaged more than 7 hours of sleep throughout the week.

The researchers used the hepatic steatosis index (HSI) to determine the presence of a fatty liver, calculated as 8 x (ratio of serum ALT to serum AST) + body mass index (+ 2 for female, + 2 in case of diabetes). An HSI of at least36 was considered an indicator of fatty liver.
 

Less sleep, more risk

Participants in set 1 slept for a mean of 6.8 hours, with 58.6% sleeping more than 7 hours a day. Those in set 2 slept a mean of 6.9 hours during weekdays, with 59.9% sleeping more than 7 hours. They also slept a mean of 7.7 hours on weekends.

In set 1, sleeping at least7 hours was associated with a 16% lower risk for NAFLD (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.89).

In set 2, sleeping at least 7 hours on weekdays was associated with a 19% reduced risk for NAFLD (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89). Sleeping at least 7 hours on the weekend was associated with a 22% reduced risk for NAFLD (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87). Compared with those who slept less than 7 hours throughout the week, those who slept less than 7 hours on weekdays and more than 7 hours on weekends had a 20% lower rate of NAFLD (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92).

All these associations held true for both men and women.
 

Why getting your Z’s may have hepatic advantages

One explanation for the link between sleep patterns and NAFLD is that dysregulation of cortisol, inflammatory cytokines, and norepinephrine are associated with both variations in sleep and NAFLD onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

They also pointed out that a lack of sleep can reduce the secretion of two hormones that promote satiety: leptin and glucagonlike peptide–1. As a result, people who sleep less may eat more and gain weight, which increases the risk for NAFLD.

Ashwani K. Singal, MD, MS, a professor of medicine at the University of South Dakota, Vermillion, who was not involved in the study, noted that it was based on comparing a cross section of a population instead of following the participants over time.

“So, I think it’s an association rather than a cause and effect,” he said in an interview.

The authors don’t report a multivariate analysis to determine whether comorbidities or other characteristics of the patients could explain the association, he pointed out, noting that obesity, for example, can increase the risk for both NAFLD and sleep apnea.

Still, Dr. Singal said, the paper will influence him to mention sleep in the context of lifestyle factors that can affect fatty liver disease. “I’m going to tell my patients, and tell the community physicians to tell their patients, to follow a good sleep hygiene and make sure that they sleep at least 5-7 hours.”

Dr. Singal and the study authors all reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea.

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

People who don’t get enough sleep during the week may be able to reduce their risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by catching up on the weekends, researchers say.

“Our study revealed that people who get enough sleep have a lower risk of developing NAFLD than those who get insufficient sleep,” Sangheun Lee, MD, PhD, from Catholic Kwandong University, Incheon, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in Annals of Hepatology.

However, they cautioned that further research is needed to verify their finding.

Previous studies have associated insufficient sleep with obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease, as well as liver fibrosis.

A busy weekday schedule can make it harder to get enough sleep, and some people try to compensate by sleeping longer on weekends. Studies so far have produced mixed findings on this strategy, with some showing that more sleep on the weekend reduces the risk for obesity, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome, and others showing no effect on metabolic dysregulation or energy balance.
 

Accessing a nation’s sleep data

To explore the relationship between sleep patterns and NAFLD, Dr. Lee and colleagues analyzed data from Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys collected from 2008 to 2019. They excluded people aged less than 20 years, those with hepatitis B or C infections, liver cirrhosis or liver cancer, shift workers and others who “slept irregularly,” and those who consumed alcohol excessively, leaving a cohort of 101,138 participants.

The survey didn’t distinguish between sleep on weekdays and weekends until 2016, so the researchers divided their findings into two: 68,759 people surveyed from 2008 to 2015 (set 1) and 32,379 surveyed from 2016 to 2019 (set 2).

Set 1 was further divided into those who averaged more than 7 hours of sleep per day and those who slept less than that. Set 2 was divided into three groups: one that averaged less than 7 hours of sleep per day and did not catch up on weekends, one that averaged less than 7 hours of sleep per day and did catch up on weekends, and one that averaged more than 7 hours of sleep throughout the week.

The researchers used the hepatic steatosis index (HSI) to determine the presence of a fatty liver, calculated as 8 x (ratio of serum ALT to serum AST) + body mass index (+ 2 for female, + 2 in case of diabetes). An HSI of at least36 was considered an indicator of fatty liver.
 

Less sleep, more risk

Participants in set 1 slept for a mean of 6.8 hours, with 58.6% sleeping more than 7 hours a day. Those in set 2 slept a mean of 6.9 hours during weekdays, with 59.9% sleeping more than 7 hours. They also slept a mean of 7.7 hours on weekends.

In set 1, sleeping at least7 hours was associated with a 16% lower risk for NAFLD (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.89).

In set 2, sleeping at least 7 hours on weekdays was associated with a 19% reduced risk for NAFLD (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89). Sleeping at least 7 hours on the weekend was associated with a 22% reduced risk for NAFLD (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.87). Compared with those who slept less than 7 hours throughout the week, those who slept less than 7 hours on weekdays and more than 7 hours on weekends had a 20% lower rate of NAFLD (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92).

All these associations held true for both men and women.
 

Why getting your Z’s may have hepatic advantages

One explanation for the link between sleep patterns and NAFLD is that dysregulation of cortisol, inflammatory cytokines, and norepinephrine are associated with both variations in sleep and NAFLD onset, Dr. Lee and colleagues wrote.

They also pointed out that a lack of sleep can reduce the secretion of two hormones that promote satiety: leptin and glucagonlike peptide–1. As a result, people who sleep less may eat more and gain weight, which increases the risk for NAFLD.

Ashwani K. Singal, MD, MS, a professor of medicine at the University of South Dakota, Vermillion, who was not involved in the study, noted that it was based on comparing a cross section of a population instead of following the participants over time.

“So, I think it’s an association rather than a cause and effect,” he said in an interview.

The authors don’t report a multivariate analysis to determine whether comorbidities or other characteristics of the patients could explain the association, he pointed out, noting that obesity, for example, can increase the risk for both NAFLD and sleep apnea.

Still, Dr. Singal said, the paper will influence him to mention sleep in the context of lifestyle factors that can affect fatty liver disease. “I’m going to tell my patients, and tell the community physicians to tell their patients, to follow a good sleep hygiene and make sure that they sleep at least 5-7 hours.”

Dr. Singal and the study authors all reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea.

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

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

Unless air pollution and smoking patterns are reversed, lung cancer cases and deaths will grow unabated in some countries, according to estimates of lung cancer incident cases, deaths, and their age-standardized rates.

The findings, based on recently released data from GLOBOCAN 2020 projected to the year 2050, suggest that the lung cancer epidemic will continue to unfold, according to Rajesh Sharma, PhD, et al., in a study published in the International Journal of Clinical Oncology. GLOBOCAN 2020 is an online database produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It provides global cancer statistics from 185 countries for 36 cancer types.

The increase in lung cancer, the leading cancer worldwide in terms of deaths, is generally attributed to increases in cigarette smoking, Sharma et al. wrote. They point out that, while cigarette smoking is expected to have peaked in industrialized countries in the latter half of the twentieth century, the tobacco smoking epidemic is unfolding in regions of Asia and Africa with concomitant increases in lung cancer burden in several countries. Smoking is the most significant lung cancer risk factor, followed by air pollution (especially particulate matter, passive smoking, and occupational exposure to radon and asbestos).

The authors investigated bivariate associations between smoking prevalence and age-standardized rates of lung cancer, and projected lung cancer incident cases and deaths to 2050. They also looked at mortality-to-incidence, considered to be a proxy indicator of 5-year survival, and at human development index, a measure including life expectancy at birth, years of schooling, and standard of living. The results, they state, are expected to aid in policy formulation to combat the lung cancer burden at global, regional, and national levels.

Tobacco smoking prevalence was 21.9% worldwide in 2016, with tobacco smoking prevalence exceeding 25% in 57/149 countries. It was high in European countries with 5 of the top-10 countries among the 149 countries within Europe. Prevalence was greater than 10% in all European countries. Notably, 11/33 countries in Africa had a smoking prevalence less than 10%.

Analysis showed 2.21 million new lung cancer cases and 1.8 million deaths attributed to lung cancer worldwide in 2020, with males accounting for about two-thirds of the burden. The analysis projection for 2050 was for 3.8 million incident cases of lung cancer and 3.2 million lung cancer deaths globally. In 2050, lung cancer cases and deaths are projected to be more than 100,000 in 10/21 regions, led by Eastern Asia, projected to record 1.7 million incident cases and 1.5 million deaths.

The burden of lung cancer in regions of Asia and Africa is expected to increase at least twofold from 2020 to 2050, surpassing European regions that are expected to have the smallest increases. Also, while incident cases will remain much higher in Northern America than in Southeastern Asia and South-Central Asia, the number of lives lost is projected to be similar. The age-specific incidence and death rates rose with age such that the oldest age groups had the highest age-specific rates. With the human development index, mortality-to-incidence showed a negative correlation.

The authors wrote that worsening smoking and pollution levels in developing countries may push the future lung cancer burden much higher than these projections. Unless reversed, cases and death will grow unabated.

“Countering the burden of lung cancer also requires curtailment of other risk factors such as air pollution and exposure to carcinogens,” the authors wrote.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors stated that they have no conflicts of interest.

Unless air pollution and smoking patterns are reversed, lung cancer cases and deaths will grow unabated in some countries, according to estimates of lung cancer incident cases, deaths, and their age-standardized rates.

The findings, based on recently released data from GLOBOCAN 2020 projected to the year 2050, suggest that the lung cancer epidemic will continue to unfold, according to Rajesh Sharma, PhD, et al., in a study published in the International Journal of Clinical Oncology. GLOBOCAN 2020 is an online database produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It provides global cancer statistics from 185 countries for 36 cancer types.

The increase in lung cancer, the leading cancer worldwide in terms of deaths, is generally attributed to increases in cigarette smoking, Sharma et al. wrote. They point out that, while cigarette smoking is expected to have peaked in industrialized countries in the latter half of the twentieth century, the tobacco smoking epidemic is unfolding in regions of Asia and Africa with concomitant increases in lung cancer burden in several countries. Smoking is the most significant lung cancer risk factor, followed by air pollution (especially particulate matter, passive smoking, and occupational exposure to radon and asbestos).

The authors investigated bivariate associations between smoking prevalence and age-standardized rates of lung cancer, and projected lung cancer incident cases and deaths to 2050. They also looked at mortality-to-incidence, considered to be a proxy indicator of 5-year survival, and at human development index, a measure including life expectancy at birth, years of schooling, and standard of living. The results, they state, are expected to aid in policy formulation to combat the lung cancer burden at global, regional, and national levels.

Tobacco smoking prevalence was 21.9% worldwide in 2016, with tobacco smoking prevalence exceeding 25% in 57/149 countries. It was high in European countries with 5 of the top-10 countries among the 149 countries within Europe. Prevalence was greater than 10% in all European countries. Notably, 11/33 countries in Africa had a smoking prevalence less than 10%.

Analysis showed 2.21 million new lung cancer cases and 1.8 million deaths attributed to lung cancer worldwide in 2020, with males accounting for about two-thirds of the burden. The analysis projection for 2050 was for 3.8 million incident cases of lung cancer and 3.2 million lung cancer deaths globally. In 2050, lung cancer cases and deaths are projected to be more than 100,000 in 10/21 regions, led by Eastern Asia, projected to record 1.7 million incident cases and 1.5 million deaths.

The burden of lung cancer in regions of Asia and Africa is expected to increase at least twofold from 2020 to 2050, surpassing European regions that are expected to have the smallest increases. Also, while incident cases will remain much higher in Northern America than in Southeastern Asia and South-Central Asia, the number of lives lost is projected to be similar. The age-specific incidence and death rates rose with age such that the oldest age groups had the highest age-specific rates. With the human development index, mortality-to-incidence showed a negative correlation.

The authors wrote that worsening smoking and pollution levels in developing countries may push the future lung cancer burden much higher than these projections. Unless reversed, cases and death will grow unabated.

“Countering the burden of lung cancer also requires curtailment of other risk factors such as air pollution and exposure to carcinogens,” the authors wrote.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors stated that they have no conflicts of interest.

Unless air pollution and smoking patterns are reversed, lung cancer cases and deaths will grow unabated in some countries, according to estimates of lung cancer incident cases, deaths, and their age-standardized rates.

The findings, based on recently released data from GLOBOCAN 2020 projected to the year 2050, suggest that the lung cancer epidemic will continue to unfold, according to Rajesh Sharma, PhD, et al., in a study published in the International Journal of Clinical Oncology. GLOBOCAN 2020 is an online database produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It provides global cancer statistics from 185 countries for 36 cancer types.

The increase in lung cancer, the leading cancer worldwide in terms of deaths, is generally attributed to increases in cigarette smoking, Sharma et al. wrote. They point out that, while cigarette smoking is expected to have peaked in industrialized countries in the latter half of the twentieth century, the tobacco smoking epidemic is unfolding in regions of Asia and Africa with concomitant increases in lung cancer burden in several countries. Smoking is the most significant lung cancer risk factor, followed by air pollution (especially particulate matter, passive smoking, and occupational exposure to radon and asbestos).

The authors investigated bivariate associations between smoking prevalence and age-standardized rates of lung cancer, and projected lung cancer incident cases and deaths to 2050. They also looked at mortality-to-incidence, considered to be a proxy indicator of 5-year survival, and at human development index, a measure including life expectancy at birth, years of schooling, and standard of living. The results, they state, are expected to aid in policy formulation to combat the lung cancer burden at global, regional, and national levels.

Tobacco smoking prevalence was 21.9% worldwide in 2016, with tobacco smoking prevalence exceeding 25% in 57/149 countries. It was high in European countries with 5 of the top-10 countries among the 149 countries within Europe. Prevalence was greater than 10% in all European countries. Notably, 11/33 countries in Africa had a smoking prevalence less than 10%.

Analysis showed 2.21 million new lung cancer cases and 1.8 million deaths attributed to lung cancer worldwide in 2020, with males accounting for about two-thirds of the burden. The analysis projection for 2050 was for 3.8 million incident cases of lung cancer and 3.2 million lung cancer deaths globally. In 2050, lung cancer cases and deaths are projected to be more than 100,000 in 10/21 regions, led by Eastern Asia, projected to record 1.7 million incident cases and 1.5 million deaths.

The burden of lung cancer in regions of Asia and Africa is expected to increase at least twofold from 2020 to 2050, surpassing European regions that are expected to have the smallest increases. Also, while incident cases will remain much higher in Northern America than in Southeastern Asia and South-Central Asia, the number of lives lost is projected to be similar. The age-specific incidence and death rates rose with age such that the oldest age groups had the highest age-specific rates. With the human development index, mortality-to-incidence showed a negative correlation.

The authors wrote that worsening smoking and pollution levels in developing countries may push the future lung cancer burden much higher than these projections. Unless reversed, cases and death will grow unabated.

“Countering the burden of lung cancer also requires curtailment of other risk factors such as air pollution and exposure to carcinogens,” the authors wrote.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors stated that they have no conflicts of interest.