User login
The Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management® is an independent, peer-reviewed journal offering evidence-based, practical information for improving the quality, safety, and value of health care.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
The body of evidence for Paxlovid therapy
Dear Colleagues,
We have a mismatch. The evidence supporting treatment for Paxlovid is compelling for people aged 60 or over, but the older patients in the United States are much less likely to be treated. Not only was there a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of high-risk patients which showed 89% reduction of hospitalizations and deaths (median age, 45), but there have been multiple real-world effectiveness studies subsequently published that have partitioned the benefit for age 65 or older, such as the ones from Israel and Hong Kong (age 60+). Overall, the real-world effectiveness in the first month after treatment is at least as good, if not better, than in the high-risk randomized trial.
We’re doing the current survey to find out, but the most likely reasons include (1) lack of confidence of benefit; (2) medication interactions; and (3) concerns over rebound.
Let me address each of these briefly. The lack of confidence in benefit stems from the fact that the initial high-risk trial was in unvaccinated individuals. That concern can now be put aside because all of the several real-world studies confirming the protective benefit against hospitalizations and deaths are in people who have been vaccinated, and a significant proportion received booster shots.
The potential medication interactions due to the ritonavir component of the Paxlovid drug combination, attributable to its cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition, have been unduly emphasized. There are many drug-interaction checkers for Paxlovid, but this one from the University of Liverpool is user friendly, color- and icon-coded, and shows that the vast majority of interactions can be sidestepped by discontinuing the medication of concern for the length of the Paxlovid treatment, 5 days. The simple chart is provided in my recent substack newsletter.
As far as rebound, this problem has unfortunately been exaggerated because of lack of prospective systematic studies and appreciation that a positive test of clinical symptom rebound can occur without Paxlovid. There are soon to be multiple reports that the incidence of Paxlovid rebound is fairly low, in the range of 10%. That concern should not be a reason to withhold treatment.
Now the plot thickens. A new preprint report from the Veterans Health Administration, the largest health care system in the United States, looks at 90-day outcomes of about 9,000 Paxlovid-treated patients and approximately 47,000 controls. Not only was there a 26% reduction in long COVID, but of the breakdown of 12 organs/systems and symptoms, 10 of 12 were significantly reduced with Paxlovid, including pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and neurocognitive impairment. There was also a 48% reduction in death and a 30% reduction in hospitalizations after the first 30 days. I have reviewed all of these data and put them in context in a recent newsletter. A key point is that the magnitude of benefit was unaffected by vaccination or booster status, or prior COVID infections, or unvaccinated status. Also, it was the same for men and women, as well as for age > 70 and age < 60. These findings all emphasize a new reason to be using Paxlovid therapy, and if replicated, Paxlovid may even be indicated for younger patients (who are at low risk for hospitalizations and deaths but at increased risk for long COVID).
In summary, for older patients, we should be thinking of why we should be using Paxlovid rather than the reason not to treat. We’ll be interested in the survey results to understand the mismatch better, and we look forward to your ideas and feedback to make better use of this treatment for the people who need it the most.
Sincerely yours, Eric J. Topol, MD
Dr. Topol reports no conflicts of interest with Pfizer; he receives no honoraria or speaker fees, does not serve in an advisory role, and has no financial association with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dear Colleagues,
We have a mismatch. The evidence supporting treatment for Paxlovid is compelling for people aged 60 or over, but the older patients in the United States are much less likely to be treated. Not only was there a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of high-risk patients which showed 89% reduction of hospitalizations and deaths (median age, 45), but there have been multiple real-world effectiveness studies subsequently published that have partitioned the benefit for age 65 or older, such as the ones from Israel and Hong Kong (age 60+). Overall, the real-world effectiveness in the first month after treatment is at least as good, if not better, than in the high-risk randomized trial.
We’re doing the current survey to find out, but the most likely reasons include (1) lack of confidence of benefit; (2) medication interactions; and (3) concerns over rebound.
Let me address each of these briefly. The lack of confidence in benefit stems from the fact that the initial high-risk trial was in unvaccinated individuals. That concern can now be put aside because all of the several real-world studies confirming the protective benefit against hospitalizations and deaths are in people who have been vaccinated, and a significant proportion received booster shots.
The potential medication interactions due to the ritonavir component of the Paxlovid drug combination, attributable to its cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition, have been unduly emphasized. There are many drug-interaction checkers for Paxlovid, but this one from the University of Liverpool is user friendly, color- and icon-coded, and shows that the vast majority of interactions can be sidestepped by discontinuing the medication of concern for the length of the Paxlovid treatment, 5 days. The simple chart is provided in my recent substack newsletter.
As far as rebound, this problem has unfortunately been exaggerated because of lack of prospective systematic studies and appreciation that a positive test of clinical symptom rebound can occur without Paxlovid. There are soon to be multiple reports that the incidence of Paxlovid rebound is fairly low, in the range of 10%. That concern should not be a reason to withhold treatment.
Now the plot thickens. A new preprint report from the Veterans Health Administration, the largest health care system in the United States, looks at 90-day outcomes of about 9,000 Paxlovid-treated patients and approximately 47,000 controls. Not only was there a 26% reduction in long COVID, but of the breakdown of 12 organs/systems and symptoms, 10 of 12 were significantly reduced with Paxlovid, including pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and neurocognitive impairment. There was also a 48% reduction in death and a 30% reduction in hospitalizations after the first 30 days. I have reviewed all of these data and put them in context in a recent newsletter. A key point is that the magnitude of benefit was unaffected by vaccination or booster status, or prior COVID infections, or unvaccinated status. Also, it was the same for men and women, as well as for age > 70 and age < 60. These findings all emphasize a new reason to be using Paxlovid therapy, and if replicated, Paxlovid may even be indicated for younger patients (who are at low risk for hospitalizations and deaths but at increased risk for long COVID).
In summary, for older patients, we should be thinking of why we should be using Paxlovid rather than the reason not to treat. We’ll be interested in the survey results to understand the mismatch better, and we look forward to your ideas and feedback to make better use of this treatment for the people who need it the most.
Sincerely yours, Eric J. Topol, MD
Dr. Topol reports no conflicts of interest with Pfizer; he receives no honoraria or speaker fees, does not serve in an advisory role, and has no financial association with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dear Colleagues,
We have a mismatch. The evidence supporting treatment for Paxlovid is compelling for people aged 60 or over, but the older patients in the United States are much less likely to be treated. Not only was there a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of high-risk patients which showed 89% reduction of hospitalizations and deaths (median age, 45), but there have been multiple real-world effectiveness studies subsequently published that have partitioned the benefit for age 65 or older, such as the ones from Israel and Hong Kong (age 60+). Overall, the real-world effectiveness in the first month after treatment is at least as good, if not better, than in the high-risk randomized trial.
We’re doing the current survey to find out, but the most likely reasons include (1) lack of confidence of benefit; (2) medication interactions; and (3) concerns over rebound.
Let me address each of these briefly. The lack of confidence in benefit stems from the fact that the initial high-risk trial was in unvaccinated individuals. That concern can now be put aside because all of the several real-world studies confirming the protective benefit against hospitalizations and deaths are in people who have been vaccinated, and a significant proportion received booster shots.
The potential medication interactions due to the ritonavir component of the Paxlovid drug combination, attributable to its cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition, have been unduly emphasized. There are many drug-interaction checkers for Paxlovid, but this one from the University of Liverpool is user friendly, color- and icon-coded, and shows that the vast majority of interactions can be sidestepped by discontinuing the medication of concern for the length of the Paxlovid treatment, 5 days. The simple chart is provided in my recent substack newsletter.
As far as rebound, this problem has unfortunately been exaggerated because of lack of prospective systematic studies and appreciation that a positive test of clinical symptom rebound can occur without Paxlovid. There are soon to be multiple reports that the incidence of Paxlovid rebound is fairly low, in the range of 10%. That concern should not be a reason to withhold treatment.
Now the plot thickens. A new preprint report from the Veterans Health Administration, the largest health care system in the United States, looks at 90-day outcomes of about 9,000 Paxlovid-treated patients and approximately 47,000 controls. Not only was there a 26% reduction in long COVID, but of the breakdown of 12 organs/systems and symptoms, 10 of 12 were significantly reduced with Paxlovid, including pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and neurocognitive impairment. There was also a 48% reduction in death and a 30% reduction in hospitalizations after the first 30 days. I have reviewed all of these data and put them in context in a recent newsletter. A key point is that the magnitude of benefit was unaffected by vaccination or booster status, or prior COVID infections, or unvaccinated status. Also, it was the same for men and women, as well as for age > 70 and age < 60. These findings all emphasize a new reason to be using Paxlovid therapy, and if replicated, Paxlovid may even be indicated for younger patients (who are at low risk for hospitalizations and deaths but at increased risk for long COVID).
In summary, for older patients, we should be thinking of why we should be using Paxlovid rather than the reason not to treat. We’ll be interested in the survey results to understand the mismatch better, and we look forward to your ideas and feedback to make better use of this treatment for the people who need it the most.
Sincerely yours, Eric J. Topol, MD
Dr. Topol reports no conflicts of interest with Pfizer; he receives no honoraria or speaker fees, does not serve in an advisory role, and has no financial association with the company.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Repeat COVID infection doubles mortality risk
Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.
Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.
“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”
The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.
“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”
Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.
Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.
An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.
“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.
Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.
“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”
The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.
“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”
Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.
Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.
An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.
“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Getting COVID-19 a second time doubles a person’s chance of dying and triples the likelihood of being hospitalized in the next 6 months, a new study found.
Vaccination and booster status did not improve survival or hospitalization rates among people who were infected more than once.
“Reinfection with COVID-19 increases the risk of both acute outcomes and long COVID,” study author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, told Reuters. “This was evident in unvaccinated, vaccinated and boosted people.”
The study was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
Researchers analyzed U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs data, including 443,588 people with a first infection of SARS-CoV-2, 40,947 people who were infected two or more times, and 5.3 million people who had not been infected with coronavirus, whose data served as the control group.
“During the past few months, there’s been an air of invincibility among people who have had COVID-19 or their vaccinations and boosters, and especially among people who have had an infection and also received vaccines; some people started to [refer] to these individuals as having a sort of superimmunity to the virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said in a press release from Washington University in St. Louis. “Without ambiguity, our research showed that getting an infection a second, third or fourth time contributes to additional health risks in the acute phase, meaning the first 30 days after infection, and in the months beyond, meaning the long COVID phase.”
Being infected with COVID-19 more than once also dramatically increased the risk of developing lung problems, heart conditions, or brain conditions. The heightened risks persisted for 6 months.
Researchers said a limitation of their study was that data primarily came from White males.
An expert not involved in the study told Reuters that the Veterans Affairs population does not reflect the general population. Patients at VA health facilities are generally older with more than normal health complications, said John Moore, PhD, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
Dr. Al-Aly encouraged people to be vigilant as they plan for the holiday season, Reuters reported.
“We had started seeing a lot of patients coming to the clinic with an air of invincibility,” he told Reuters. “They wondered, ‘Does getting a reinfection really matter?’ The answer is yes, it absolutely does.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Has the time come for glucose monitors for people without diabetes?
Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.
Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.
In a related issue that highlights a limitation in this area, new data suggest that the “glucose management indicator (GMI)” feature of CGMs used for diabetes management – a percentage derived from people with diabetes and elevated A1c – may overestimate the actual A1c level in people without diabetes or those with diabetes who maintain A1c less than 6.5%.
“This is an evolving space ... CGM in people with prediabetes may be beneficial, but we need more data and evidence to recommend it. CGM metrics such as time-in-range and GMI are designed for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and therefore, they are not applicable for people without diabetes,” Viral Shah, MD, said in an interview.
During the recent virtual Diabetes Technology Society meeting, Dr. Shah presented results from a soon-to-be published study finding that on average, GMI was 0.59% higher in people with A1c less than 5.7% and 0.49% higher for A1c 5.7%-6.4%, both significant (P < .0001). Dr. Shah, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Adult Clinic, Aurora, Colorado, also presented those data in June at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Juan Espinoza, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization that there are data showing that CGM can be a “powerful biofeedback tool” in people with obesity who don’t have diabetes. “Since they don’t have diabetes the time in range or GMI is meaningless. What’s useful for them is seeing the glucose changes in real time and then using that as a trigger for behavioral change.”
‘An idea whose time has come?’
Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”
The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.
Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.
Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.
As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.
But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”
Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”
Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.
“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
What to do with the data?
The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.
Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.
Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”
He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”
In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”
Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.
Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.
In a related issue that highlights a limitation in this area, new data suggest that the “glucose management indicator (GMI)” feature of CGMs used for diabetes management – a percentage derived from people with diabetes and elevated A1c – may overestimate the actual A1c level in people without diabetes or those with diabetes who maintain A1c less than 6.5%.
“This is an evolving space ... CGM in people with prediabetes may be beneficial, but we need more data and evidence to recommend it. CGM metrics such as time-in-range and GMI are designed for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and therefore, they are not applicable for people without diabetes,” Viral Shah, MD, said in an interview.
During the recent virtual Diabetes Technology Society meeting, Dr. Shah presented results from a soon-to-be published study finding that on average, GMI was 0.59% higher in people with A1c less than 5.7% and 0.49% higher for A1c 5.7%-6.4%, both significant (P < .0001). Dr. Shah, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Adult Clinic, Aurora, Colorado, also presented those data in June at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Juan Espinoza, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization that there are data showing that CGM can be a “powerful biofeedback tool” in people with obesity who don’t have diabetes. “Since they don’t have diabetes the time in range or GMI is meaningless. What’s useful for them is seeing the glucose changes in real time and then using that as a trigger for behavioral change.”
‘An idea whose time has come?’
Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”
The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.
Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.
Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.
As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.
But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”
Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”
Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.
“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
What to do with the data?
The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.
Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.
Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”
He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”
In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”
Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) by people without diabetes is becoming increasingly popular despite little evidence of benefit thus far, prompting discussion in the diabetes technology community about best practices.
Emerging uses for CGM outside of diabetes include improving glucose patterns to avoid diabetes, improving mental or physical performance, and promoting motivation for healthy behavior change. Such uses are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and not covered by health insurance, yet a growing number of people are paying digital health companies for the devices as part of wellness packages.
In a related issue that highlights a limitation in this area, new data suggest that the “glucose management indicator (GMI)” feature of CGMs used for diabetes management – a percentage derived from people with diabetes and elevated A1c – may overestimate the actual A1c level in people without diabetes or those with diabetes who maintain A1c less than 6.5%.
“This is an evolving space ... CGM in people with prediabetes may be beneficial, but we need more data and evidence to recommend it. CGM metrics such as time-in-range and GMI are designed for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and therefore, they are not applicable for people without diabetes,” Viral Shah, MD, said in an interview.
During the recent virtual Diabetes Technology Society meeting, Dr. Shah presented results from a soon-to-be published study finding that on average, GMI was 0.59% higher in people with A1c less than 5.7% and 0.49% higher for A1c 5.7%-6.4%, both significant (P < .0001). Dr. Shah, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, Adult Clinic, Aurora, Colorado, also presented those data in June at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
Juan Espinoza, MD, of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization that there are data showing that CGM can be a “powerful biofeedback tool” in people with obesity who don’t have diabetes. “Since they don’t have diabetes the time in range or GMI is meaningless. What’s useful for them is seeing the glucose changes in real time and then using that as a trigger for behavioral change.”
‘An idea whose time has come?’
Dr. Espinoza was a co-author on a review published online in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, entitled, “Use of Continuous Glucose Monitors by People Without Diabetes: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?”
The review examines several aspects of the issue, beginning with studies that used CGM to investigate glucose concentrations in people with normal fasting glucose and glucose tolerance tests. Nearly all those individuals – from populations around the world – fell in the blood glucose range of 70-140 mg/dL.
Also reviewed are studies using CGM to study effects of diet, exercise, and stress on glucose levels in people without diabetes. Subsequent sections summarize the limited data that are available suggesting potential benefit for use of CGM in metabolic disease including prediabetes and obesity, non-metabolic conditions such as steroid treatment or parenteral nutrition, health and wellness, and among elite athletes. In that last group, glucose levels in both the hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic ranges during intensive activity have been documented.
Currently, there are four CGM devices that are FDA-approved for use in people with diabetes: FreeStyle Libre (Abbott), the implantable Eversense (Senseonics), and devices from Dexcom and Medtronic.
As Dr. Espinoza and colleagues explain in their review, most of the commercial health and wellness CGM programs, such as Nutrisense, Signos, and Supersapiens, actually use sensors made by those same manufacturers. Nutrisense and Supersapiens use the Libre, and Signos uses the Dexcom.
But, rather than the manufacturer’s apps meant for use by people with diabetes, the wellness companies pair the sensors with their own specially designed apps and typically offer additional services such as health coaching or nutrition counseling “to improve general health.”
Subscribers pay a monthly fee. Signos, for example, charges $399 for 1 month, $199/month for 3 months, or $159/month for 6 months. A prescription is required, but the company’s website says, “rest assured, an independent physician will handle the prescription for you, so you won’t need to arrange for a doctor visit. It is included in the cost of membership.”
Several consumer health product companies are now developing non-invasive glucose monitors, most often as a wristwatch, for people without diabetes to measure glucose optically from the skin in the wrist.
“It remains to be determined how accurate these new devices will be and how they will be regulated,” the researchers write.
What to do with the data?
The dedicated health and wellness apps typically provide average glucose and trend data but not the GMI. However, in theory users could access that metric by downloading the manufacturers’ viewing apps – for example, Clarity for Dexcom or LibreView for Libre.
Moreover, a person without diabetes could always obtain an off-label prescription from their physician for a FreeStyle Libre and purchase it at a pharmacy. At Walmart, for example, the cost for two boxes of two glucose meters with 14 days of wear each is $136.77. In that situation as well, users could download the viewing app that contains the summary data including the GMI that could potentially mislead in the setting of consistent normoglycemia.
Dr. Espinoza said: “I think there’s certainly value in glucose levels. We know the summary metrics are useful in type 1 diabetes. We don’t know which summary metrics are going to be useful in any other disease states. We may need brand new summary metrics for other disease states where it’s not about time in range. Maybe the thing that matters is the frequency or height of spikes. We don’t have a measure for that.”
He added that despite the availability of normative data, “even people without diabetes are a fairly heterogenous group. They can still have insulin resistance, so it’s tricky. From a science standpoint, we probably need studies with hundreds of patients with well-established A1c and [insulin resistance measures], weight, and body mass index. Then and only then will we be able to give an accurate glucose profile.”
In the meantime, “more data is always a good thing, but the hard thing is figuring out what do we do with it. Maybe it’s biofeedback for behavioral modification. We don’t know yet. But these are powerful tools and maybe we should learn how to use them better.”
Dr. Shah has reported receiving research grants and participating in advisory boards for Dexcom and Sanofi US. Dr. Espinoza has reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and FDA.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ADA 2022
Chronic stress, especially race related, may hasten cancer death
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
The American folk hero John Henry pitted his hammer against a mechanical steam drill, only to die of exhaustion after winning the battle. In the legend, John Henry was African American, and it’s a fitting metaphor, according to Justin Xavier Moore, PhD.
It’s a metaphor for accumulated stress over a lifetime, also known as allostatic load. Though it affects everyone, Black, Indigenous, and people of color experience it in excess. “It serves as a symbolism for the plight of African Americans within the United States, that regardless of all the triumph and trying to overcompensate and work just as hard as your counterpart, it oftentimes leads to this overtaxing or exhaustion because your competitor has an unfair advantage. You have Jim Crow laws in the South. We have the history of slavery. We have individuals of racial subgroups that are exposed daily to microaggressions, racial discrimination, stereotypes, redlining, all of these different issues that basically reduce to systemic racism,” said Dr. Moore, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
Dr. Moore is also a coauthor of a new study published online in SSM–Population Health, which examined the association between increased allostatic load and cancer outcomes among participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Death Index. They found that both non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White adults with high allostatic load had about a doubled risk of cancer death.
To determine allostatic load, the researchers looked at nine factors collected in NHANES: abnormal values of BMI, diastolic blood pressure, glycohemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum triglycerides, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and C-reactive protein. “The fact that we’re looking at cardiovascular, metabolic and immune function, all in one gives us a better risk assessment for morbidity and mortality. Allostatic load has actually been associated with cardiovascular disease. I think we are one of the first studies to actually look at whether allostatic load is associated with cancer mortality,” said Dr. Moore.
Previous research coauthored by Dr. Moore showed 20-year old African Americans have an allostatic load comparable with that seen in 30-year-old non-Hispanic Whites. That can lead to a proinflammatory state that might be causing increased cancer risk. But stress isn’t a simple concept to pin down, Dr. Moore said. “One of the founding fathers of public health research and epidemiology, Paracelsus, [said] ‘the dose makes the poison.’ ”
In this case, it means that not all stress is bad. Exercise is good stress. “Your heart rate goes up, you compete, and then it comes back down. That’s healthy. But then there’s those stressful situations like dealing with a horrible job, and a boss that may just be overdemanding. Deadlines, and not having a work-life balance. Too much stress, in this case, can cause cancer death,” Dr. Moore said.
In the study, both non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults heightened risk of cancer death when dealing with high allostatic load, even though the cause of stress may be different. “It’s almost like the cause of the stress does not matter as much. There are millions of Americans that live in environments that are not conducive to their health. The fact of the matter is that because of racial discrimination, because all these different biases, African Americans may have higher allostatic load, which they did on an average, but high allostatic load for even White people is associated with dying from cancer,” Dr. Moore said.
After adjustment, the (adjusted subdistributed hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26). After stratification by age, high allostatic load was associated with an 80% increased risk of cancer death among adults (SHR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.41). Non-Hispanic White adults had a 95% increased risk (SHR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.22-3.12), non-Hispanic Black adults had a twofold increased risk (SHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.34), and Hispanic adults had a 36% increased risk.
Dr. Moore has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM SSM–POPULATION HEALTH
Third COVID booster benefits cancer patients
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
though this population still suffers higher risks than those of the general population, according to a new large-scale observational study out of the United Kingdom.
People living with lymphoma and those who underwent recent systemic anti-cancer treatment or radiotherapy are at the highest risk, according to study author Lennard Y.W. Lee, PhD. “Our study is the largest evaluation of a coronavirus third dose vaccine booster effectiveness in people living with cancer in the world. For the first time we have quantified the benefits of boosters for COVID-19 in cancer patients,” said Dr. Lee, UK COVID Cancer program lead and a medical oncologist at the University of Oxford, England.
The research was published in the November issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Despite the encouraging numbers, those with cancer continue to have a more than threefold increased risk of both hospitalization and death from coronavirus compared to the general population. “More needs to be done to reduce this excess risk, like prophylactic antibody therapies,” Dr. Lee said.
Third dose efficacy was lower among cancer patients who had been diagnosed within the past 12 months, as well as those with lymphoma, and those who had undergone systemic anti-cancer therapy or radiotherapy within the past 12 months.
The increased vulnerability among individuals with cancer is likely due to compromised immune systems. “Patients with cancer often have impaired B and T cell function and this study provides the largest global clinical study showing the definitive meaningful clinical impact of this,” Dr. Lee said. The greater risk among those with lymphoma likely traces to aberrant white cells or immunosuppressant regimens, he said.
“Vaccination probably should be used in combination with new forms of prevention and in Europe the strategy of using prophylactic antibodies is going to provide additional levels of protection,” Dr. Lee said.
Overall, the study reveals the challenges that cancer patients face in a pandemic that remains a critical health concern, one that can seriously affect quality of life. “Many are still shielding, unable to see family or hug loved ones. Furthermore, looking beyond the direct health risks, there is also the mental health impact. Shielding for nearly 3 years is very difficult. It is important to realize that behind this large-scale study, which is the biggest in the world, there are real people. The pandemic still goes on for them as they remain at higher risk from COVID-19 and we must be aware of the impact on them,” Dr. Lee said.
The study included data from the United Kingdom’s third dose booster vaccine program, representing 361,098 individuals who participated from December 2020 through December 2021. It also include results from all coronavirus tests conducted in the United Kingdom during that period. Among the participants, 97.8% got the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as a booster, while 1.5% received the Moderna vaccine. Overall, 8,371,139 individuals received a third dose booster, including 230,666 living with cancer. The researchers used a test-negative case-controlled analysis to estimate vaccine efficacy.
The booster shot had a 59.1% efficacy against breakthrough infections, 62.8% efficacy against symptomatic infections, 80.5% efficacy versus coronavirus hospitalization, and 94.5% efficacy against coronavirus death. Patients with solid tumors benefited from higher efficacy versus breakthrough infections 66.0% versus 53.2%) and symptomatic infections (69.6% versus 56.0%).
Patients with lymphoma experienced just a 10.5% efficacy of the primary dose vaccine versus breakthrough infections and 13.6% versus symptomatic infections, and this did not improve with a third dose. The benefit was greater for hospitalization (23.2%) and death (80.1%).
Despite the additional protection of a third dose, patients with cancer had a higher risk than the population control for coronavirus hospitalization (odds ratio, 3.38; P < .000001) and death (odds ratio, 3.01; P < .000001).
Dr. Lee has no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
The clitoris steps into the spotlight with major scientific discovery
The patients of Jill Krapf, MD, are often too embarrassed to tell her about discomfort in their clitoris.
“I ask all of my patients about clitoral pain, and it is often the first time they have ever been asked about this,” says Dr. Krapf, the associate director of the Center for Vulvovaginal Disorders, a private clinic in Washington and New York.
Dr. Krapf is an ob.gyn. who specializes in female sexual pain that involves the pelvis, vagina, and vulva.
Many of the conditions Dr. Krapf treats don’t have outward symptoms that appear abnormal, but internally, there are damaged or irritated nerves that can result in hypersensitivity, unwanted arousal, or pain.
“Most recent research indicates that even a herniated disk or tear in the spine can lead to clitoral or vulvar symptoms, just like sciatica pain that shoots down the leg is related to issues in the spine,” Dr. Krapf says.
Dr. Krapf was excited to read of a new discovery: Dr. Krapf and other doctors are hopeful that the attention to the clitoris will spark more interest and comprehensive education among people in their field. They also hope it will empower patients to seek medical help if they are having issues with their clitoris.
“Female sexual health has historically been underfunded, especially compared with male sexual health, like erectile dysfunction,” Dr. Krapf says. “Optimizing vulvar and vaginal health is not only necessary for sexual well-being.”
Blair Peters, MD, a plastic surgeon who specializes in gender-affirming care, led the study, which was presented at the Sexual Medicine Society of North America conference in October. Dr. Peters says he hopes that the new information decreases stigma that the clitoris is not worthy of the same medical attention that other organs of the body receive.
When the clitoris doesn’t properly function, there can be harm to a person’s physical and mental health. Paying attention to discomfort in the clitoris, and seeking medical attention, can help catch and prevent some urinary and vaginal infections.
“The fact that it took until 2022 for someone to do this work speaks to how little attention the clitoris has received,” says Dr. Peters, an assistant professor of surgery at the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine, Portland.
What’s inside?
Dr. Peters and his colleagues completed the study by taking clitoral nerve tissue from seven adult transgender men who had received gender-affirming genital surgery. The tissues were dyed and magnified 1,000 times under a microscope so the researchers could count nerve fibers.
Dr. Peters says the finding is important because many surgeries take place in the groin region – like hip replacements, episiotomies during childbirth, and pelvic mesh procedures – and the revived attention to the clitoris may help health care providers know where nerves are so that injuries from medical mistakes are prevented.
“Nerves are at risk of damage if it’s not understood where they are at all times,” he says.
Dr. Peters hopes the new finding will help create new surgical techniques for nerve repair and offer insight for gender-affirming phalloplasty, which is the surgical construction of a penis often for transmasculine people.
Ownership of the body part
When it comes to the clitoris, no one type of doctor has specialized in the sex organ.
Urologists, gynecologists, plastic surgeons, and sex therapists all address potential problems that can arise with the clitoris and its surrounding body parts. But specialists like Dr. Krapf are few and far between.
It wasn’t until 2005 that Australian urologist Helen O’Connell found that the clitoris is filled with erectile and non-erectile tissues that are often hidden in anatomy drawings by fat and bone. And it wasn’t until the early 2000s that researchers began delving in earnest into the anatomy of the clitoris and how it functions.
And a 2018 study showed that if more doctors examined the clitoris, they could identify issues like adhesions or infections in the area, most of which can be treated without surgery.
A body part built for pleasure
Randi Levinson, a sex, marriage, and family therapist in Los Angeles, sees patients who have less sensation in the clitoris or pain while having sex, many of whom have recently given birth or are going through menopause.
Women often become embarrassed when they can’t orgasm, or have less sensation in the clitoris, but tend to avoid seeking medical advice, she says. Normalizing discussions about women’s pleasure and the vast anatomy that supports it may help some of her patients.
“The more normal it is to talk about and explore women’s pleasure, the less shame women will have when getting help when they aren’t experiencing pleasure,” Ms. Levinson says. “I have many ... clients who experience pain and discomfort with sex [after pregnancy] and no longer feel pleasure and are concerned that something is wrong with them.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The patients of Jill Krapf, MD, are often too embarrassed to tell her about discomfort in their clitoris.
“I ask all of my patients about clitoral pain, and it is often the first time they have ever been asked about this,” says Dr. Krapf, the associate director of the Center for Vulvovaginal Disorders, a private clinic in Washington and New York.
Dr. Krapf is an ob.gyn. who specializes in female sexual pain that involves the pelvis, vagina, and vulva.
Many of the conditions Dr. Krapf treats don’t have outward symptoms that appear abnormal, but internally, there are damaged or irritated nerves that can result in hypersensitivity, unwanted arousal, or pain.
“Most recent research indicates that even a herniated disk or tear in the spine can lead to clitoral or vulvar symptoms, just like sciatica pain that shoots down the leg is related to issues in the spine,” Dr. Krapf says.
Dr. Krapf was excited to read of a new discovery: Dr. Krapf and other doctors are hopeful that the attention to the clitoris will spark more interest and comprehensive education among people in their field. They also hope it will empower patients to seek medical help if they are having issues with their clitoris.
“Female sexual health has historically been underfunded, especially compared with male sexual health, like erectile dysfunction,” Dr. Krapf says. “Optimizing vulvar and vaginal health is not only necessary for sexual well-being.”
Blair Peters, MD, a plastic surgeon who specializes in gender-affirming care, led the study, which was presented at the Sexual Medicine Society of North America conference in October. Dr. Peters says he hopes that the new information decreases stigma that the clitoris is not worthy of the same medical attention that other organs of the body receive.
When the clitoris doesn’t properly function, there can be harm to a person’s physical and mental health. Paying attention to discomfort in the clitoris, and seeking medical attention, can help catch and prevent some urinary and vaginal infections.
“The fact that it took until 2022 for someone to do this work speaks to how little attention the clitoris has received,” says Dr. Peters, an assistant professor of surgery at the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine, Portland.
What’s inside?
Dr. Peters and his colleagues completed the study by taking clitoral nerve tissue from seven adult transgender men who had received gender-affirming genital surgery. The tissues were dyed and magnified 1,000 times under a microscope so the researchers could count nerve fibers.
Dr. Peters says the finding is important because many surgeries take place in the groin region – like hip replacements, episiotomies during childbirth, and pelvic mesh procedures – and the revived attention to the clitoris may help health care providers know where nerves are so that injuries from medical mistakes are prevented.
“Nerves are at risk of damage if it’s not understood where they are at all times,” he says.
Dr. Peters hopes the new finding will help create new surgical techniques for nerve repair and offer insight for gender-affirming phalloplasty, which is the surgical construction of a penis often for transmasculine people.
Ownership of the body part
When it comes to the clitoris, no one type of doctor has specialized in the sex organ.
Urologists, gynecologists, plastic surgeons, and sex therapists all address potential problems that can arise with the clitoris and its surrounding body parts. But specialists like Dr. Krapf are few and far between.
It wasn’t until 2005 that Australian urologist Helen O’Connell found that the clitoris is filled with erectile and non-erectile tissues that are often hidden in anatomy drawings by fat and bone. And it wasn’t until the early 2000s that researchers began delving in earnest into the anatomy of the clitoris and how it functions.
And a 2018 study showed that if more doctors examined the clitoris, they could identify issues like adhesions or infections in the area, most of which can be treated without surgery.
A body part built for pleasure
Randi Levinson, a sex, marriage, and family therapist in Los Angeles, sees patients who have less sensation in the clitoris or pain while having sex, many of whom have recently given birth or are going through menopause.
Women often become embarrassed when they can’t orgasm, or have less sensation in the clitoris, but tend to avoid seeking medical advice, she says. Normalizing discussions about women’s pleasure and the vast anatomy that supports it may help some of her patients.
“The more normal it is to talk about and explore women’s pleasure, the less shame women will have when getting help when they aren’t experiencing pleasure,” Ms. Levinson says. “I have many ... clients who experience pain and discomfort with sex [after pregnancy] and no longer feel pleasure and are concerned that something is wrong with them.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The patients of Jill Krapf, MD, are often too embarrassed to tell her about discomfort in their clitoris.
“I ask all of my patients about clitoral pain, and it is often the first time they have ever been asked about this,” says Dr. Krapf, the associate director of the Center for Vulvovaginal Disorders, a private clinic in Washington and New York.
Dr. Krapf is an ob.gyn. who specializes in female sexual pain that involves the pelvis, vagina, and vulva.
Many of the conditions Dr. Krapf treats don’t have outward symptoms that appear abnormal, but internally, there are damaged or irritated nerves that can result in hypersensitivity, unwanted arousal, or pain.
“Most recent research indicates that even a herniated disk or tear in the spine can lead to clitoral or vulvar symptoms, just like sciatica pain that shoots down the leg is related to issues in the spine,” Dr. Krapf says.
Dr. Krapf was excited to read of a new discovery: Dr. Krapf and other doctors are hopeful that the attention to the clitoris will spark more interest and comprehensive education among people in their field. They also hope it will empower patients to seek medical help if they are having issues with their clitoris.
“Female sexual health has historically been underfunded, especially compared with male sexual health, like erectile dysfunction,” Dr. Krapf says. “Optimizing vulvar and vaginal health is not only necessary for sexual well-being.”
Blair Peters, MD, a plastic surgeon who specializes in gender-affirming care, led the study, which was presented at the Sexual Medicine Society of North America conference in October. Dr. Peters says he hopes that the new information decreases stigma that the clitoris is not worthy of the same medical attention that other organs of the body receive.
When the clitoris doesn’t properly function, there can be harm to a person’s physical and mental health. Paying attention to discomfort in the clitoris, and seeking medical attention, can help catch and prevent some urinary and vaginal infections.
“The fact that it took until 2022 for someone to do this work speaks to how little attention the clitoris has received,” says Dr. Peters, an assistant professor of surgery at the Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine, Portland.
What’s inside?
Dr. Peters and his colleagues completed the study by taking clitoral nerve tissue from seven adult transgender men who had received gender-affirming genital surgery. The tissues were dyed and magnified 1,000 times under a microscope so the researchers could count nerve fibers.
Dr. Peters says the finding is important because many surgeries take place in the groin region – like hip replacements, episiotomies during childbirth, and pelvic mesh procedures – and the revived attention to the clitoris may help health care providers know where nerves are so that injuries from medical mistakes are prevented.
“Nerves are at risk of damage if it’s not understood where they are at all times,” he says.
Dr. Peters hopes the new finding will help create new surgical techniques for nerve repair and offer insight for gender-affirming phalloplasty, which is the surgical construction of a penis often for transmasculine people.
Ownership of the body part
When it comes to the clitoris, no one type of doctor has specialized in the sex organ.
Urologists, gynecologists, plastic surgeons, and sex therapists all address potential problems that can arise with the clitoris and its surrounding body parts. But specialists like Dr. Krapf are few and far between.
It wasn’t until 2005 that Australian urologist Helen O’Connell found that the clitoris is filled with erectile and non-erectile tissues that are often hidden in anatomy drawings by fat and bone. And it wasn’t until the early 2000s that researchers began delving in earnest into the anatomy of the clitoris and how it functions.
And a 2018 study showed that if more doctors examined the clitoris, they could identify issues like adhesions or infections in the area, most of which can be treated without surgery.
A body part built for pleasure
Randi Levinson, a sex, marriage, and family therapist in Los Angeles, sees patients who have less sensation in the clitoris or pain while having sex, many of whom have recently given birth or are going through menopause.
Women often become embarrassed when they can’t orgasm, or have less sensation in the clitoris, but tend to avoid seeking medical advice, she says. Normalizing discussions about women’s pleasure and the vast anatomy that supports it may help some of her patients.
“The more normal it is to talk about and explore women’s pleasure, the less shame women will have when getting help when they aren’t experiencing pleasure,” Ms. Levinson says. “I have many ... clients who experience pain and discomfort with sex [after pregnancy] and no longer feel pleasure and are concerned that something is wrong with them.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
First-line AFib ablation cuts risk of progression vs. drug therapy
CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.
Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.
“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”
By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).
In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.
In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint
In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.
The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.
Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.
At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.
At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).
In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).
The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.
For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.
Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
Ablation found safer than drugs
The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.
There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.
Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.
However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.
The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.
Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.
CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.
Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.
“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”
By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).
In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.
In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint
In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.
The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.
Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.
At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.
At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).
In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).
The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.
For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.
Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
Ablation found safer than drugs
The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.
There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.
Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.
However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.
The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.
Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.
CHICAGO – Early ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib) reduces the risk of progression, compared with antiarrhythmic therapies, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial called PROGRESSIVE-AF.
Over 36 months of follow-up, the trial linked early ablation with a reduced risk of persistent AFib (1.9% vs. 7.4%), and in addition, those in the ablation group were less likely to have recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias of any kind (56.5% vs. 77.2%), reported Jason G. Andrade, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
Serving as a long-term extension of the EARLY-AF trial published almost 2 years ago, this trial expands evidence that progressive AFib can be attenuated, a concept that has been debated.
“Can early AFib ablation stop progression?” asked Carina Blomström-Lindqvist, MD, PhD. The invited discussant for the PROGRESSION-AF trial, Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist concluded, “here is another set of data that suggests it can.”
By another set of data, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist was referring to a previously published multinational study called ATTEST In this study, which involved 29 sites worldwide and compared radiofrequency ablation to antiarrhythmic drug therapy, early ablation also produced a lower risk of persistent AFib at the end of 3 years (2.4% vs. 17.5%; P = .0009).
In the previously published open-label EARLY-AF trial, 303 patients with paroxysmal, untreated AFib were randomized to cryoballoon ablation or antiarrhythmic drugs. The primary endpoint was the first documented recurrence of an atrial tachyarrhythmia between 91 and 365 days. The lower rate following ablation (42.9% vs. 67.8%) represented a more than 50% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.48; P < .001) relative to antiarrhythmic therapy.
In PROGRESSIVE-AF, the same 303 patients were monitored continuously for an additional 24 months with an implanted cardiac monitor programmed with an AFib-detection algorithm. The data from the monitor were obtained daily. Over the final 2 years of the study, office visits were conducted every 6 months.
Tachyarrhythmias represent primary endpoint
In addition to persistent AFib, defined as lasting ≥ 7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination, patients in PROGRESSIVE-AF were also monitored for recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias, AFib burden, quality of life (QOL), and health care utilization, and safety.
The average age was roughly 58 years. Although more than one-third had hypertension, most had no other comorbidities. The authors emphasized that the study population overall was relatively young and healthy.
Those randomized to antiarrhythmic therapy in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF received commonly prescribed therapies titrated to maximally tolerated doses using standardized protocols. At the start of EARLY-AF, flecainide, taken by 65% of patients, was the most commonly used agent, followed by sotalol, propafenone, dronedarone, and amiodarone.
At the end of PROGRESSIVE-AF, the order of the most common therapies did not change relative to EARLY-AF, but only 49% of patients were taking flecainide and 31% were no longer taking any antiarrhythmic therapy.
At the end of 3 years of follow-up in EARLY-AF/PROGRESSIVE-AF, the difference in persistent AFib represented a 75% reduction in favor of early ablation (HR, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.70).
In those treated with ablation relative to those treated with antiarrhythmic therapy, the lower rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 7 days (1.9% vs. 6.0%) represented a 70% risk reduction (HR, 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.93). The protection from cardioversion for atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting between 2 and 7 days in duration (0.6% vs. 4.7%) translated into an 86% relative reduction (HR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).
The impact on QOL for those randomized to ablation, which was measured with both AFib-specific and generic measures, was meaningful to patients, according to Dr. Andrade, director of the Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Vancouver General Hospital.
For example, the mean difference in the AF Quality of Life Survey (AFEQT), was 8.0 at 1 year and 7.4 at 3 years in favor of ablation. A change of 5 points in this score is considered to be a clinically meaningful difference, according to Dr. Andrade.
Numerically, the relative risk of emergency room visits and cardioversion were lower in the ablation group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, the lower hazard ratio for hospitalization was significant (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66), supporting a reduction in consumption of health care resources.
Ablation found safer than drugs
The rate of adverse events of any kind (11.0% vs. 23.5%) and serious adverse events (4.5% vs. 10.1%) were lower in the ablation group.
There were no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events observed in this period of follow-up, but Dr. Andrade pointed out that follow-up was not long enough to expect differences in these events.
Impressed by the magnitude of the reduction in persistent AFib in a population of relatively young and healthy patients considered to be at a low risk of AFib progression, Dr. Blomström-Lindqvist, a professor of cardiology at the Institution of Medical Science, Uppsala, Sweden, indicated that the data support early ablation as a means to reduce risk of this outcome.
However, she did caution that progressive AFib was observed in a relatively small proportion of patients managed with antiarrhythmic therapy at 3 years, an outcome relevant when discussing treatment options with patients.
The results were published in New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr. Andrade’s presentation.
Dr. Andrade reports financial relationships with Bayer, Bayliss, Biosense, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medtronic and Servier. The trial, funded largely by the Canadian government and Canadian professional societies, received additional funding from Bayliss and Medtronic. Dr. Blomström-Lundqvist reports financial relationships with Bayer, Boston Scientific, Cathprint, Medtronic, and Sanofi.
AT AHA 2022
Liver disease-related deaths rise during pandemic
according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Between 2019 and 2021, ALD-related deaths increased by 17.6% and NAFLD-related deaths increased by 14.5%, Yee Hui Yeo, MD, a resident physician and hepatology-focused investigator at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, said at a preconference press briefing.
“Even before the pandemic, the mortality rates for these two diseases have been increasing, with NAFLD having an even steeper increasing trend,” he said. “During the pandemic, these two diseases had a significant surge.”
Recent U.S. liver disease death rates
Dr. Yeo and colleagues analyzed data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistic System to estimate the age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR) of liver disease between 2010 and 2021, including ALD, NAFLD, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Using prediction modeling analyses based on trends from 2010 to 2019, they predicted mortality rates for 2020-2021 and compared them with the observed rates to quantify the differences related to the pandemic.
Between 2010 and 2021, there were about 626,000 chronic liver disease–related deaths, including about 343,000 ALD-related deaths, 204,000 hepatitis C–related deaths, 58,000 NAFLD-related deaths, and 21,000 hepatitis B–related deaths.
For ALD-related deaths, the annual percentage change was 3.5% for 2010-2019 and 17.6% for 2019-2021. The observed ASMR in 2020 was significantly higher than predicted, at 15.7 deaths per 100,000 people versus 13.0 predicted from the 2010-2019 rate. The trend continued in 2021, with 17.4 deaths per 100,000 people versus 13.4 in the previous decade.
The highest numbers of ALD-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and South Dakota.
For NAFLD-related deaths, the annual percentage change was 7.6% for 2010-2014, 11.8% for 2014-2019, and 14.5% for 2019-2021. The observed ASMR was also higher than predicted, at 3.1 deaths per 100,000 people versus 2.6 in 2020, as well as 3.4 versus 2.8 in 2021.
The highest numbers of NAFLD-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Hepatitis B and C gains lost in pandemic
In contrast, the annual percentage change in was –1.9% for hepatitis B and –2.8% for hepatitis C. After new treatment for hepatitis C emerged in 2013-2014, mortality rates were –7.8% for 2014-2019, Dr. Yeo noted.
“However, during the pandemic, we saw that this decrease has become a nonsignificant change,” he said. “That means our progress of the past 5 or 6 years has already stopped during the pandemic.”
By race and ethnicity, the increase in ALD-related mortality was most pronounced in non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Alaska Native/American Indian populations, Dr. Yeo said. Alaska Natives and American Indians had the highest annual percentage change, at 18%, followed by non-Hispanic Whites at 11.7% and non-Hispanic Blacks at 10.8%. There were no significant differences in race and ethnicity for NAFLD-related deaths, although all groups had major increases in recent years.
Biggest rise in young adults
By age, the increase in ALD-related mortality was particularly severe for ages 25-44, with an annual percentage change of 34.6% in 2019-2021, as compared with 13.7% for ages 45-64 and 12.6% for ages 65 and older.
For NAFLD-related deaths, another major increase was observed among ages 25-44, with an annual percentage change of 28.1% for 2019-2021, as compared with 12% for ages 65 and older and 7.4% for ages 45-64.
By sex, the ASMR increase in NAFLD-related mortality was steady throughout 2010-2021 for both men and women. In contrast, ALD-related death increased sharply between 2019 and 2021, with an annual percentage change of 19.1% for women and 16.7% for men.
“The increasing trend in mortality rates for ALD and NAFLD has been quite alarming, with disparities in age, race, and ethnicity,” Dr. Yeo said.
The study received no funding support. Some authors disclosed research funding, advisory board roles, and consulting fees with various pharmaceutical companies.
according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Between 2019 and 2021, ALD-related deaths increased by 17.6% and NAFLD-related deaths increased by 14.5%, Yee Hui Yeo, MD, a resident physician and hepatology-focused investigator at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, said at a preconference press briefing.
“Even before the pandemic, the mortality rates for these two diseases have been increasing, with NAFLD having an even steeper increasing trend,” he said. “During the pandemic, these two diseases had a significant surge.”
Recent U.S. liver disease death rates
Dr. Yeo and colleagues analyzed data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistic System to estimate the age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR) of liver disease between 2010 and 2021, including ALD, NAFLD, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Using prediction modeling analyses based on trends from 2010 to 2019, they predicted mortality rates for 2020-2021 and compared them with the observed rates to quantify the differences related to the pandemic.
Between 2010 and 2021, there were about 626,000 chronic liver disease–related deaths, including about 343,000 ALD-related deaths, 204,000 hepatitis C–related deaths, 58,000 NAFLD-related deaths, and 21,000 hepatitis B–related deaths.
For ALD-related deaths, the annual percentage change was 3.5% for 2010-2019 and 17.6% for 2019-2021. The observed ASMR in 2020 was significantly higher than predicted, at 15.7 deaths per 100,000 people versus 13.0 predicted from the 2010-2019 rate. The trend continued in 2021, with 17.4 deaths per 100,000 people versus 13.4 in the previous decade.
The highest numbers of ALD-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and South Dakota.
For NAFLD-related deaths, the annual percentage change was 7.6% for 2010-2014, 11.8% for 2014-2019, and 14.5% for 2019-2021. The observed ASMR was also higher than predicted, at 3.1 deaths per 100,000 people versus 2.6 in 2020, as well as 3.4 versus 2.8 in 2021.
The highest numbers of NAFLD-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Hepatitis B and C gains lost in pandemic
In contrast, the annual percentage change in was –1.9% for hepatitis B and –2.8% for hepatitis C. After new treatment for hepatitis C emerged in 2013-2014, mortality rates were –7.8% for 2014-2019, Dr. Yeo noted.
“However, during the pandemic, we saw that this decrease has become a nonsignificant change,” he said. “That means our progress of the past 5 or 6 years has already stopped during the pandemic.”
By race and ethnicity, the increase in ALD-related mortality was most pronounced in non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Alaska Native/American Indian populations, Dr. Yeo said. Alaska Natives and American Indians had the highest annual percentage change, at 18%, followed by non-Hispanic Whites at 11.7% and non-Hispanic Blacks at 10.8%. There were no significant differences in race and ethnicity for NAFLD-related deaths, although all groups had major increases in recent years.
Biggest rise in young adults
By age, the increase in ALD-related mortality was particularly severe for ages 25-44, with an annual percentage change of 34.6% in 2019-2021, as compared with 13.7% for ages 45-64 and 12.6% for ages 65 and older.
For NAFLD-related deaths, another major increase was observed among ages 25-44, with an annual percentage change of 28.1% for 2019-2021, as compared with 12% for ages 65 and older and 7.4% for ages 45-64.
By sex, the ASMR increase in NAFLD-related mortality was steady throughout 2010-2021 for both men and women. In contrast, ALD-related death increased sharply between 2019 and 2021, with an annual percentage change of 19.1% for women and 16.7% for men.
“The increasing trend in mortality rates for ALD and NAFLD has been quite alarming, with disparities in age, race, and ethnicity,” Dr. Yeo said.
The study received no funding support. Some authors disclosed research funding, advisory board roles, and consulting fees with various pharmaceutical companies.
according to new findings presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Between 2019 and 2021, ALD-related deaths increased by 17.6% and NAFLD-related deaths increased by 14.5%, Yee Hui Yeo, MD, a resident physician and hepatology-focused investigator at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, said at a preconference press briefing.
“Even before the pandemic, the mortality rates for these two diseases have been increasing, with NAFLD having an even steeper increasing trend,” he said. “During the pandemic, these two diseases had a significant surge.”
Recent U.S. liver disease death rates
Dr. Yeo and colleagues analyzed data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistic System to estimate the age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR) of liver disease between 2010 and 2021, including ALD, NAFLD, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Using prediction modeling analyses based on trends from 2010 to 2019, they predicted mortality rates for 2020-2021 and compared them with the observed rates to quantify the differences related to the pandemic.
Between 2010 and 2021, there were about 626,000 chronic liver disease–related deaths, including about 343,000 ALD-related deaths, 204,000 hepatitis C–related deaths, 58,000 NAFLD-related deaths, and 21,000 hepatitis B–related deaths.
For ALD-related deaths, the annual percentage change was 3.5% for 2010-2019 and 17.6% for 2019-2021. The observed ASMR in 2020 was significantly higher than predicted, at 15.7 deaths per 100,000 people versus 13.0 predicted from the 2010-2019 rate. The trend continued in 2021, with 17.4 deaths per 100,000 people versus 13.4 in the previous decade.
The highest numbers of ALD-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and South Dakota.
For NAFLD-related deaths, the annual percentage change was 7.6% for 2010-2014, 11.8% for 2014-2019, and 14.5% for 2019-2021. The observed ASMR was also higher than predicted, at 3.1 deaths per 100,000 people versus 2.6 in 2020, as well as 3.4 versus 2.8 in 2021.
The highest numbers of NAFLD-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in Oklahoma, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Hepatitis B and C gains lost in pandemic
In contrast, the annual percentage change in was –1.9% for hepatitis B and –2.8% for hepatitis C. After new treatment for hepatitis C emerged in 2013-2014, mortality rates were –7.8% for 2014-2019, Dr. Yeo noted.
“However, during the pandemic, we saw that this decrease has become a nonsignificant change,” he said. “That means our progress of the past 5 or 6 years has already stopped during the pandemic.”
By race and ethnicity, the increase in ALD-related mortality was most pronounced in non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Alaska Native/American Indian populations, Dr. Yeo said. Alaska Natives and American Indians had the highest annual percentage change, at 18%, followed by non-Hispanic Whites at 11.7% and non-Hispanic Blacks at 10.8%. There were no significant differences in race and ethnicity for NAFLD-related deaths, although all groups had major increases in recent years.
Biggest rise in young adults
By age, the increase in ALD-related mortality was particularly severe for ages 25-44, with an annual percentage change of 34.6% in 2019-2021, as compared with 13.7% for ages 45-64 and 12.6% for ages 65 and older.
For NAFLD-related deaths, another major increase was observed among ages 25-44, with an annual percentage change of 28.1% for 2019-2021, as compared with 12% for ages 65 and older and 7.4% for ages 45-64.
By sex, the ASMR increase in NAFLD-related mortality was steady throughout 2010-2021 for both men and women. In contrast, ALD-related death increased sharply between 2019 and 2021, with an annual percentage change of 19.1% for women and 16.7% for men.
“The increasing trend in mortality rates for ALD and NAFLD has been quite alarming, with disparities in age, race, and ethnicity,” Dr. Yeo said.
The study received no funding support. Some authors disclosed research funding, advisory board roles, and consulting fees with various pharmaceutical companies.
FROM THE LIVER MEETING
A hormone that can predict male long-term health
Insulin-like peptide 3 (INSL3) is a constitutive hormone secreted in men by the mature Leydig cells of the testes, explained the authors of the new study, published in Frontiers in Endocrinology.
“It is an accurate biomarker for Leydig cell functional capacity, reflecting their total cell number and differentiation status,” they said.
“The holy grail of aging research is to reduce the fitness gap that appears as people age,” said Ravinder Anand-Ivell, PhD, associate professor in endocrinology and reproductive physiology at the University of Nottingham (England), and study coauthor. Understanding why some people are more likely to develop disability and disease as they age is “vital” so that interventions can be found to ensure people not only live a long life but also a healthy life as they age, she highlighted.
The European team of researchers, led by scientists from the University of Nottingham, set out to determine the ability of INSL3 as a biomarker to predict hypogonadism and age-related morbidity, and whether this also allowed it to predict morbidity in a similar way to testosterone.
For the study, the researchers analyzed blood samples from the European Male Aging Study (EMAS) cohort to assess circulating INSL3 and its cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships to hypogonadism – defined by testosterone less than 10.5 nmol/L – and a range of age-related morbidities determined by correlation and regression analysis.
The EMAS cohort of community-dwelling men comprises more than 3,000 men, aged 40-79 years at the time of recruitment, from eight centers in Europe. Men were recruited from 2003 to 2004 and again 4-5 years later for a second phase of the study. In both phases, blood was collected for hormonal measurements, and subjects were assessed for anthropometric parameters and asked to complete questionnaires relating to their health, lifestyle, and diet.
Hormone levels remain constant
The results showed that, unlike testosterone, which fluctuates throughout a man’s life, INSL3 remains consistent, with the level at puberty remaining largely the same throughout a man’s life, decreasing only slightly into old age. “This makes it the first clear and reliable predictive biomarker of age-related morbidity as compared with any other measurable parameters,” explained the researchers.
They also discovered that the level of INSL3 in blood “correlates with a range of age-related conditions,” such as bone weakness, sexual dysfunction, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
They emphasized that the discovery of the consistent nature of this hormone is “very significant.” It means that a man with high INSL3 when young will still have high INSL3 when he is older, but someone with low INSL3 already at a young age will have low INSL3 when older, “making him more likely to acquire typical age-related illnesses.”
Dr. Anand-Ivell commented that the hormone discovery was an “important step” and will pave the way for not only helping people individually but also helping to “ease the care crisis we face as a society.”
Exciting possibilities for predicting age
The study also showed that the normal male population, even when young and relatively healthy, still shows an almost 10-fold variation between individuals in the concentration of INSL3 in the blood, the authors reported.
The authors highlighted that the study’s strengths are the large and comprehensive dataset provided by the EMAS cohort, together with the accuracy of the hormonal parameters measured. The weaknesses, they explained, are the self-reported nature of some of the morbidity parameters as well as the relatively short longitudinal dimension of only 4.3 years average.
Richard Ivell, University of Nottingham, and lead author, explained that now the important role of INSL3 in predicting disease, and how it varies amongst men, had been established, the team is looking to investigate what factors have the most influence on the level of INSL3 in the blood. “Preliminary work suggests early life nutrition may play a role, but many other factors such as genetics or exposure to some environmental endocrine disruptors may play a part”.
The study findings open up “exciting possibilities for predicting age-related illnesses and finding ways to prevent the onset of these diseases with early intervention,” the authors enthused.
The study was initiated and supported by the European 5th Framework, and the German Research Council provided funding for the INSL3 analysis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.
Insulin-like peptide 3 (INSL3) is a constitutive hormone secreted in men by the mature Leydig cells of the testes, explained the authors of the new study, published in Frontiers in Endocrinology.
“It is an accurate biomarker for Leydig cell functional capacity, reflecting their total cell number and differentiation status,” they said.
“The holy grail of aging research is to reduce the fitness gap that appears as people age,” said Ravinder Anand-Ivell, PhD, associate professor in endocrinology and reproductive physiology at the University of Nottingham (England), and study coauthor. Understanding why some people are more likely to develop disability and disease as they age is “vital” so that interventions can be found to ensure people not only live a long life but also a healthy life as they age, she highlighted.
The European team of researchers, led by scientists from the University of Nottingham, set out to determine the ability of INSL3 as a biomarker to predict hypogonadism and age-related morbidity, and whether this also allowed it to predict morbidity in a similar way to testosterone.
For the study, the researchers analyzed blood samples from the European Male Aging Study (EMAS) cohort to assess circulating INSL3 and its cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships to hypogonadism – defined by testosterone less than 10.5 nmol/L – and a range of age-related morbidities determined by correlation and regression analysis.
The EMAS cohort of community-dwelling men comprises more than 3,000 men, aged 40-79 years at the time of recruitment, from eight centers in Europe. Men were recruited from 2003 to 2004 and again 4-5 years later for a second phase of the study. In both phases, blood was collected for hormonal measurements, and subjects were assessed for anthropometric parameters and asked to complete questionnaires relating to their health, lifestyle, and diet.
Hormone levels remain constant
The results showed that, unlike testosterone, which fluctuates throughout a man’s life, INSL3 remains consistent, with the level at puberty remaining largely the same throughout a man’s life, decreasing only slightly into old age. “This makes it the first clear and reliable predictive biomarker of age-related morbidity as compared with any other measurable parameters,” explained the researchers.
They also discovered that the level of INSL3 in blood “correlates with a range of age-related conditions,” such as bone weakness, sexual dysfunction, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
They emphasized that the discovery of the consistent nature of this hormone is “very significant.” It means that a man with high INSL3 when young will still have high INSL3 when he is older, but someone with low INSL3 already at a young age will have low INSL3 when older, “making him more likely to acquire typical age-related illnesses.”
Dr. Anand-Ivell commented that the hormone discovery was an “important step” and will pave the way for not only helping people individually but also helping to “ease the care crisis we face as a society.”
Exciting possibilities for predicting age
The study also showed that the normal male population, even when young and relatively healthy, still shows an almost 10-fold variation between individuals in the concentration of INSL3 in the blood, the authors reported.
The authors highlighted that the study’s strengths are the large and comprehensive dataset provided by the EMAS cohort, together with the accuracy of the hormonal parameters measured. The weaknesses, they explained, are the self-reported nature of some of the morbidity parameters as well as the relatively short longitudinal dimension of only 4.3 years average.
Richard Ivell, University of Nottingham, and lead author, explained that now the important role of INSL3 in predicting disease, and how it varies amongst men, had been established, the team is looking to investigate what factors have the most influence on the level of INSL3 in the blood. “Preliminary work suggests early life nutrition may play a role, but many other factors such as genetics or exposure to some environmental endocrine disruptors may play a part”.
The study findings open up “exciting possibilities for predicting age-related illnesses and finding ways to prevent the onset of these diseases with early intervention,” the authors enthused.
The study was initiated and supported by the European 5th Framework, and the German Research Council provided funding for the INSL3 analysis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.
Insulin-like peptide 3 (INSL3) is a constitutive hormone secreted in men by the mature Leydig cells of the testes, explained the authors of the new study, published in Frontiers in Endocrinology.
“It is an accurate biomarker for Leydig cell functional capacity, reflecting their total cell number and differentiation status,” they said.
“The holy grail of aging research is to reduce the fitness gap that appears as people age,” said Ravinder Anand-Ivell, PhD, associate professor in endocrinology and reproductive physiology at the University of Nottingham (England), and study coauthor. Understanding why some people are more likely to develop disability and disease as they age is “vital” so that interventions can be found to ensure people not only live a long life but also a healthy life as they age, she highlighted.
The European team of researchers, led by scientists from the University of Nottingham, set out to determine the ability of INSL3 as a biomarker to predict hypogonadism and age-related morbidity, and whether this also allowed it to predict morbidity in a similar way to testosterone.
For the study, the researchers analyzed blood samples from the European Male Aging Study (EMAS) cohort to assess circulating INSL3 and its cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships to hypogonadism – defined by testosterone less than 10.5 nmol/L – and a range of age-related morbidities determined by correlation and regression analysis.
The EMAS cohort of community-dwelling men comprises more than 3,000 men, aged 40-79 years at the time of recruitment, from eight centers in Europe. Men were recruited from 2003 to 2004 and again 4-5 years later for a second phase of the study. In both phases, blood was collected for hormonal measurements, and subjects were assessed for anthropometric parameters and asked to complete questionnaires relating to their health, lifestyle, and diet.
Hormone levels remain constant
The results showed that, unlike testosterone, which fluctuates throughout a man’s life, INSL3 remains consistent, with the level at puberty remaining largely the same throughout a man’s life, decreasing only slightly into old age. “This makes it the first clear and reliable predictive biomarker of age-related morbidity as compared with any other measurable parameters,” explained the researchers.
They also discovered that the level of INSL3 in blood “correlates with a range of age-related conditions,” such as bone weakness, sexual dysfunction, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
They emphasized that the discovery of the consistent nature of this hormone is “very significant.” It means that a man with high INSL3 when young will still have high INSL3 when he is older, but someone with low INSL3 already at a young age will have low INSL3 when older, “making him more likely to acquire typical age-related illnesses.”
Dr. Anand-Ivell commented that the hormone discovery was an “important step” and will pave the way for not only helping people individually but also helping to “ease the care crisis we face as a society.”
Exciting possibilities for predicting age
The study also showed that the normal male population, even when young and relatively healthy, still shows an almost 10-fold variation between individuals in the concentration of INSL3 in the blood, the authors reported.
The authors highlighted that the study’s strengths are the large and comprehensive dataset provided by the EMAS cohort, together with the accuracy of the hormonal parameters measured. The weaknesses, they explained, are the self-reported nature of some of the morbidity parameters as well as the relatively short longitudinal dimension of only 4.3 years average.
Richard Ivell, University of Nottingham, and lead author, explained that now the important role of INSL3 in predicting disease, and how it varies amongst men, had been established, the team is looking to investigate what factors have the most influence on the level of INSL3 in the blood. “Preliminary work suggests early life nutrition may play a role, but many other factors such as genetics or exposure to some environmental endocrine disruptors may play a part”.
The study findings open up “exciting possibilities for predicting age-related illnesses and finding ways to prevent the onset of these diseases with early intervention,” the authors enthused.
The study was initiated and supported by the European 5th Framework, and the German Research Council provided funding for the INSL3 analysis. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Hicks has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on MedscapeUK.
FROM FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY
U.K. doctor found guilty of trying to conceal cause of child’s death
The parents of Claire Roberts were told at the time that a viral infection had spread from her stomach to her brain and that medics had done everything possible to save her. But a television documentary, UTV’s “When Hospitals Kill” (broadcast in October 2004), raised concerns about the treatment of a number of children who died from hyponatremia, which occurs when there is a shortage of sodium in the bloodstream.
After the screening, a public inquiry was announced as Alan and Jennifer Roberts sought answers from the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Northern Ireland, about the care of their daughter, who died in October 1996.
On Nov. 7, a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found that Dr. Heather Steen was not aware of the risks of “dilutional hyponatraemia” at the time, but there was “far more awareness” of the issue after the UTV documentary.
Doctor ‘persisted’ with ‘misrepresentation’ of a viral cause to ‘avoid scrutiny’
Tribunal chairman Sean Ell said: “The tribunal accepted that Dr. Steen was not attempting to conceal details of, or failings in, Patient A’s care in 1996/97, when she believed there was a viral cause of death.
“However, once dilutional hyponatraemia as a result of fluid and electrolyte mismanagement became a live issue from 2004, Dr. Steen persisted with her focus on a viral cause and continued to emphasise this aspect whilst seeking to downplay, qualify, and minimise or ignore findings to the contrary.”
He said this “misrepresentation” continued through the consultant pediatrician’s involvement with Claire’s parents, at a coroner’s inquest, which was ordered after the documentary screening, and the public inquiry.
Mr. Ell said: “It was done in order to conceal the true circumstances of Patient A’s death, and in particular, the possible failings in Patient A’s care.
“Dr. Steen had many opportunities to reconsider and be open and transparent, but chose to maintain her dishonesty over the course of events after 2004.
“Whilst the failings may not have changed the tragic outcome of Patient A’s death, her parents were seeking answers to what happened and were entitled to full transparency.”
Dr. Steen denied the allegations but did not give evidence.
The General Medical Council had argued Dr. Steen tried to cover up the circumstances of Claire’s death to “avoid scrutiny.” The MPTS panel, sitting remotely, will next consider whether Dr. Steen’s fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct.
The hyponatremia public inquiry concluded in 2018 that Claire’s death was the result of “negligent care” from an overdose of fluids and medication. A fresh inquest in 2019 ruled her death was “caused by the treatment she received in hospital.”
This article contains information from PA Media. A version of this article appeared on MedscapeUK.
The parents of Claire Roberts were told at the time that a viral infection had spread from her stomach to her brain and that medics had done everything possible to save her. But a television documentary, UTV’s “When Hospitals Kill” (broadcast in October 2004), raised concerns about the treatment of a number of children who died from hyponatremia, which occurs when there is a shortage of sodium in the bloodstream.
After the screening, a public inquiry was announced as Alan and Jennifer Roberts sought answers from the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Northern Ireland, about the care of their daughter, who died in October 1996.
On Nov. 7, a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found that Dr. Heather Steen was not aware of the risks of “dilutional hyponatraemia” at the time, but there was “far more awareness” of the issue after the UTV documentary.
Doctor ‘persisted’ with ‘misrepresentation’ of a viral cause to ‘avoid scrutiny’
Tribunal chairman Sean Ell said: “The tribunal accepted that Dr. Steen was not attempting to conceal details of, or failings in, Patient A’s care in 1996/97, when she believed there was a viral cause of death.
“However, once dilutional hyponatraemia as a result of fluid and electrolyte mismanagement became a live issue from 2004, Dr. Steen persisted with her focus on a viral cause and continued to emphasise this aspect whilst seeking to downplay, qualify, and minimise or ignore findings to the contrary.”
He said this “misrepresentation” continued through the consultant pediatrician’s involvement with Claire’s parents, at a coroner’s inquest, which was ordered after the documentary screening, and the public inquiry.
Mr. Ell said: “It was done in order to conceal the true circumstances of Patient A’s death, and in particular, the possible failings in Patient A’s care.
“Dr. Steen had many opportunities to reconsider and be open and transparent, but chose to maintain her dishonesty over the course of events after 2004.
“Whilst the failings may not have changed the tragic outcome of Patient A’s death, her parents were seeking answers to what happened and were entitled to full transparency.”
Dr. Steen denied the allegations but did not give evidence.
The General Medical Council had argued Dr. Steen tried to cover up the circumstances of Claire’s death to “avoid scrutiny.” The MPTS panel, sitting remotely, will next consider whether Dr. Steen’s fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct.
The hyponatremia public inquiry concluded in 2018 that Claire’s death was the result of “negligent care” from an overdose of fluids and medication. A fresh inquest in 2019 ruled her death was “caused by the treatment she received in hospital.”
This article contains information from PA Media. A version of this article appeared on MedscapeUK.
The parents of Claire Roberts were told at the time that a viral infection had spread from her stomach to her brain and that medics had done everything possible to save her. But a television documentary, UTV’s “When Hospitals Kill” (broadcast in October 2004), raised concerns about the treatment of a number of children who died from hyponatremia, which occurs when there is a shortage of sodium in the bloodstream.
After the screening, a public inquiry was announced as Alan and Jennifer Roberts sought answers from the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, Northern Ireland, about the care of their daughter, who died in October 1996.
On Nov. 7, a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found that Dr. Heather Steen was not aware of the risks of “dilutional hyponatraemia” at the time, but there was “far more awareness” of the issue after the UTV documentary.
Doctor ‘persisted’ with ‘misrepresentation’ of a viral cause to ‘avoid scrutiny’
Tribunal chairman Sean Ell said: “The tribunal accepted that Dr. Steen was not attempting to conceal details of, or failings in, Patient A’s care in 1996/97, when she believed there was a viral cause of death.
“However, once dilutional hyponatraemia as a result of fluid and electrolyte mismanagement became a live issue from 2004, Dr. Steen persisted with her focus on a viral cause and continued to emphasise this aspect whilst seeking to downplay, qualify, and minimise or ignore findings to the contrary.”
He said this “misrepresentation” continued through the consultant pediatrician’s involvement with Claire’s parents, at a coroner’s inquest, which was ordered after the documentary screening, and the public inquiry.
Mr. Ell said: “It was done in order to conceal the true circumstances of Patient A’s death, and in particular, the possible failings in Patient A’s care.
“Dr. Steen had many opportunities to reconsider and be open and transparent, but chose to maintain her dishonesty over the course of events after 2004.
“Whilst the failings may not have changed the tragic outcome of Patient A’s death, her parents were seeking answers to what happened and were entitled to full transparency.”
Dr. Steen denied the allegations but did not give evidence.
The General Medical Council had argued Dr. Steen tried to cover up the circumstances of Claire’s death to “avoid scrutiny.” The MPTS panel, sitting remotely, will next consider whether Dr. Steen’s fitness to practice is impaired by reason of misconduct.
The hyponatremia public inquiry concluded in 2018 that Claire’s death was the result of “negligent care” from an overdose of fluids and medication. A fresh inquest in 2019 ruled her death was “caused by the treatment she received in hospital.”
This article contains information from PA Media. A version of this article appeared on MedscapeUK.