Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Black Americans are 80% more likely to be hospitalized for the flu, compared with White Americans, according to new federal data.

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults in the United States also have had lower influenza vaccination rates, compared with their White counterparts, since 2010, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed in a report.

The inequalities are the result of barriers to care, distrust of the medical system, and misinformation, the report said.

“We have many of the tools we need to address inequities and flu vaccination coverage and outcomes,” said CDC Acting Principal Deputy Director Debra Houry, MD, MPH, in a press call; “however, we must acknowledge that inequities in access to care continue to exist. To improve vaccine uptake, we must address the root causes of these ongoing disparities.”

The CDC has already reported early increases in flu activity in the United States, with the highest activity in the southeastern and south-central parts of the country. Experts also warn of a potentially more severe influenza season than in the previous 2 years. CDC officials emphasized that vaccination is the best protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death from the flu. “Everyone should get vaccinated against flu today and encourage others and their community to get a flu vaccine for the best protection against flu this fall and winter,” Dr. Houry said.

In the recent report on disparities by community published October 18 in CDC Vital Signs, researchers looked at hospitalization rates from 2009 to 2022 and vaccination rates from 2010 to 2022 based on race and ethnicity using two national databases, the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. All individuals included in the analysis were aged 18 years or older, and the 2020-2021 flu season was excluded from the analysis because of insufficient data.

Compared with those for White adults, hospitalization rates were 80% higher for Black adults, 30% higher for Hispanic adults, and 20% higher for AI/AN adults. While flu vaccination rates were similar in White and Asian adults (about 54%), coverage was lower in Black (42%), Hispanic (38%), AI/AN (41%), and other/multiracial (43%) adults. This disparity persisted even among individuals who had medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine checkup within the last year.

“This report adds to the body of evidence that shows people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups have more severe outcomes at higher rates than White adults,” Carla Black, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s Immunization Services Division, said during the press call. While flu vaccines may not always prevent infection, people who do get sick after being vaccinated tend to have better outcomes, she added. The report noted that building trust, increasing access to vaccination services, and combating misinformation are important steps to increasing vaccine coverage in minority groups. 

While social distancing measures such as masking have made it difficult for the flu to spread, the relaxation of these safety measures could also lead to higher case counts. “We’ve had two mild flu seasons, and this means we might be ripe for a severe season,” Dr. Black said. “People haven’t had natural disease in 2 years, so there’s less natural immunity out there. People are going back to work. People are traveling again. All of these factors could contribute to us having a more severe flu season.”

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

Black Americans are 80% more likely to be hospitalized for the flu, compared with White Americans, according to new federal data.

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults in the United States also have had lower influenza vaccination rates, compared with their White counterparts, since 2010, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed in a report.

The inequalities are the result of barriers to care, distrust of the medical system, and misinformation, the report said.

“We have many of the tools we need to address inequities and flu vaccination coverage and outcomes,” said CDC Acting Principal Deputy Director Debra Houry, MD, MPH, in a press call; “however, we must acknowledge that inequities in access to care continue to exist. To improve vaccine uptake, we must address the root causes of these ongoing disparities.”

The CDC has already reported early increases in flu activity in the United States, with the highest activity in the southeastern and south-central parts of the country. Experts also warn of a potentially more severe influenza season than in the previous 2 years. CDC officials emphasized that vaccination is the best protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death from the flu. “Everyone should get vaccinated against flu today and encourage others and their community to get a flu vaccine for the best protection against flu this fall and winter,” Dr. Houry said.

In the recent report on disparities by community published October 18 in CDC Vital Signs, researchers looked at hospitalization rates from 2009 to 2022 and vaccination rates from 2010 to 2022 based on race and ethnicity using two national databases, the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. All individuals included in the analysis were aged 18 years or older, and the 2020-2021 flu season was excluded from the analysis because of insufficient data.

Compared with those for White adults, hospitalization rates were 80% higher for Black adults, 30% higher for Hispanic adults, and 20% higher for AI/AN adults. While flu vaccination rates were similar in White and Asian adults (about 54%), coverage was lower in Black (42%), Hispanic (38%), AI/AN (41%), and other/multiracial (43%) adults. This disparity persisted even among individuals who had medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine checkup within the last year.

“This report adds to the body of evidence that shows people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups have more severe outcomes at higher rates than White adults,” Carla Black, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s Immunization Services Division, said during the press call. While flu vaccines may not always prevent infection, people who do get sick after being vaccinated tend to have better outcomes, she added. The report noted that building trust, increasing access to vaccination services, and combating misinformation are important steps to increasing vaccine coverage in minority groups. 

While social distancing measures such as masking have made it difficult for the flu to spread, the relaxation of these safety measures could also lead to higher case counts. “We’ve had two mild flu seasons, and this means we might be ripe for a severe season,” Dr. Black said. “People haven’t had natural disease in 2 years, so there’s less natural immunity out there. People are going back to work. People are traveling again. All of these factors could contribute to us having a more severe flu season.”

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

Black Americans are 80% more likely to be hospitalized for the flu, compared with White Americans, according to new federal data.

Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults in the United States also have had lower influenza vaccination rates, compared with their White counterparts, since 2010, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed in a report.

The inequalities are the result of barriers to care, distrust of the medical system, and misinformation, the report said.

“We have many of the tools we need to address inequities and flu vaccination coverage and outcomes,” said CDC Acting Principal Deputy Director Debra Houry, MD, MPH, in a press call; “however, we must acknowledge that inequities in access to care continue to exist. To improve vaccine uptake, we must address the root causes of these ongoing disparities.”

The CDC has already reported early increases in flu activity in the United States, with the highest activity in the southeastern and south-central parts of the country. Experts also warn of a potentially more severe influenza season than in the previous 2 years. CDC officials emphasized that vaccination is the best protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death from the flu. “Everyone should get vaccinated against flu today and encourage others and their community to get a flu vaccine for the best protection against flu this fall and winter,” Dr. Houry said.

In the recent report on disparities by community published October 18 in CDC Vital Signs, researchers looked at hospitalization rates from 2009 to 2022 and vaccination rates from 2010 to 2022 based on race and ethnicity using two national databases, the Influenza-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. All individuals included in the analysis were aged 18 years or older, and the 2020-2021 flu season was excluded from the analysis because of insufficient data.

Compared with those for White adults, hospitalization rates were 80% higher for Black adults, 30% higher for Hispanic adults, and 20% higher for AI/AN adults. While flu vaccination rates were similar in White and Asian adults (about 54%), coverage was lower in Black (42%), Hispanic (38%), AI/AN (41%), and other/multiracial (43%) adults. This disparity persisted even among individuals who had medical insurance, a personal health care provider, and a routine checkup within the last year.

“This report adds to the body of evidence that shows people from certain racial and ethnic minority groups have more severe outcomes at higher rates than White adults,” Carla Black, PhD, MPH, an epidemiologist at the CDC’s Immunization Services Division, said during the press call. While flu vaccines may not always prevent infection, people who do get sick after being vaccinated tend to have better outcomes, she added. The report noted that building trust, increasing access to vaccination services, and combating misinformation are important steps to increasing vaccine coverage in minority groups. 

While social distancing measures such as masking have made it difficult for the flu to spread, the relaxation of these safety measures could also lead to higher case counts. “We’ve had two mild flu seasons, and this means we might be ripe for a severe season,” Dr. Black said. “People haven’t had natural disease in 2 years, so there’s less natural immunity out there. People are going back to work. People are traveling again. All of these factors could contribute to us having a more severe flu season.”

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

Transplantation of cadaveric pancreatic islet cells resulted in graft survival and function with acceptable safety for up to 8 years in selected individuals with type 1 diabetes, new research finds.

The study is a long-term follow-up of two phase 3 pivotal trials from the Clinical Islet Transplantation Consortium of a purified human pancreatic islet cell product for treating people with type 1 diabetes.

One trial involved islet transplantation in 48 people who experienced severe hypoglycemia and hypoglycemic unawareness, and the other trial included 24 people who also experienced those complications and were already receiving immunosuppression following kidney transplant. The trials, both registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), met their primary efficacy and safety endpoints at 2- and 3-year timepoints.

The follow-up data have now been published in Diabetes Care by Michael Rickels, MD, and colleagues.

The procedure involved infusion through the hepatic portal vein of one or more purified human pancreatic islet products under standardized immunosuppression using methods that Dr. Rickels and colleagues have been developing since 2004. The approach involves multiple modalities to protect the islets prior to transplantation.

Among the 34 islet-alone and eight islet-after–kidney transplant recipients who entered the extended follow-up, durable graft survival allowing for achievement of glycemic targets occurred without severe hypoglycemia or adverse effects from immunosuppression.

The primary outcome, actuarial survival of graft islet function, was 56% at the maximum follow-up of 8.3 years for the islet-only transplantation group and 49% at 7.3 years for the islet-after–kidney transplantation group (P = .004).

The findings suggest that “in the long run, islet transplantation has efficacy, including among those who have had kidney transplants ... Most type 1 diabetes patients are improved tremendously with current insulin delivery systems ... but for those having the most difficulty controlling their blood sugar – and those whose diabetes has already been complicated by needing a kidney transplant – the outcomes we saw in this study are what we’ve been hoping to achieve for more than 20 years,” said Dr. Rickels in a statement from his institution, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the initial trials at day 75 after the initial transplant, 87.5% of the islet-alone and 71% of the islet-after–kidney transplant group achieved hemoglobin A1c under 7%, and 85% and 54%, respectively, achieved A1c at or under 6.5%. At the end of maximal follow-up, 49% of islet-only transplant recipients maintained A1c under 7%, although none had A1c at or under 6.5%. For the islet-after–kidney transplant group, these proportions were 35% and 17%, respectively (P = .0017 for A1c under 7.0% and P < .0001 for A1c ≤ 6.5%, respectively, between the groups).

There were 12 severe hypoglycemic episodes in five patients (three islet-alone and two islet-after–kidney transplant group) during the initial trials, but no additional episodes occurred in either group during long-term follow-up.  

Overall, 53 individuals – 37 in the islet-alone and 16 in the islet-after–kidney transplant group – or 74% of the total, achieved a period of insulin independence with A1c under 7%, ranging from 36 to 481 days. The range of time to achieving insulin independence reflects individuals who received one, two, or three islet infusions.

The fact that most patients achieved insulin independence following just one (n = 20) or two (n = 30) infusions and only three patients required three infusions was notable, Dr. Rickels said.

“Currently, around the world, there’s an expectation of two to three donor pancreases being needed. Here, it’s one, maybe two. It’s a much more efficient protocol and opens up access for more islet transplantation as a hoped-for alternative to pancreas transplants.”

Of those who achieved insulin independence, 30 (57%) remained insulin-independent throughout follow-up (20 of 37 islet-alone and 10 of 16 islet-after–kidney transplant patients), with no difference in duration of insulin independence between the groups.

There were no deaths during post-transplant follow-up. Rates of serious adverse events were 0.31 and 0.43 per patient-year for the islet-after–kidney and islet-alone transplant groups, respectively. Of a total of 104 serious adverse events, 65 occurred during the initial trials and had been previously reported. Of the additional 39 serious adverse events that occurred during long-term follow-up, 11 were possibly due to immunosuppression and 27 were deemed unrelated to the procedures.

According to Dr. Rickels, “These are the most seriously affected patients, and you’d be expecting to see some hospitalizations in a population managed on immunosuppression therapy ... It’s important to note that none of the adverse events were related to the actual islet product. Also, kidney function remained stable during long-term follow-up in both cohorts, in fact, improving in those who had kidney transplants.”

Overall, he said, “This is a much less invasive procedure that opens itself up to significantly fewer complications than what many of these patients would otherwise require, a pancreas transplant, which involves major abdominal surgery.”

The investigators plan to submit these data as part of a biologic license application (BLA) to the FDA.

The research was supported by grants from JDRF, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Rickels has reported receiving consulting fees from Sernova and Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

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

Transplantation of cadaveric pancreatic islet cells resulted in graft survival and function with acceptable safety for up to 8 years in selected individuals with type 1 diabetes, new research finds.

The study is a long-term follow-up of two phase 3 pivotal trials from the Clinical Islet Transplantation Consortium of a purified human pancreatic islet cell product for treating people with type 1 diabetes.

One trial involved islet transplantation in 48 people who experienced severe hypoglycemia and hypoglycemic unawareness, and the other trial included 24 people who also experienced those complications and were already receiving immunosuppression following kidney transplant. The trials, both registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), met their primary efficacy and safety endpoints at 2- and 3-year timepoints.

The follow-up data have now been published in Diabetes Care by Michael Rickels, MD, and colleagues.

The procedure involved infusion through the hepatic portal vein of one or more purified human pancreatic islet products under standardized immunosuppression using methods that Dr. Rickels and colleagues have been developing since 2004. The approach involves multiple modalities to protect the islets prior to transplantation.

Among the 34 islet-alone and eight islet-after–kidney transplant recipients who entered the extended follow-up, durable graft survival allowing for achievement of glycemic targets occurred without severe hypoglycemia or adverse effects from immunosuppression.

The primary outcome, actuarial survival of graft islet function, was 56% at the maximum follow-up of 8.3 years for the islet-only transplantation group and 49% at 7.3 years for the islet-after–kidney transplantation group (P = .004).

The findings suggest that “in the long run, islet transplantation has efficacy, including among those who have had kidney transplants ... Most type 1 diabetes patients are improved tremendously with current insulin delivery systems ... but for those having the most difficulty controlling their blood sugar – and those whose diabetes has already been complicated by needing a kidney transplant – the outcomes we saw in this study are what we’ve been hoping to achieve for more than 20 years,” said Dr. Rickels in a statement from his institution, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the initial trials at day 75 after the initial transplant, 87.5% of the islet-alone and 71% of the islet-after–kidney transplant group achieved hemoglobin A1c under 7%, and 85% and 54%, respectively, achieved A1c at or under 6.5%. At the end of maximal follow-up, 49% of islet-only transplant recipients maintained A1c under 7%, although none had A1c at or under 6.5%. For the islet-after–kidney transplant group, these proportions were 35% and 17%, respectively (P = .0017 for A1c under 7.0% and P < .0001 for A1c ≤ 6.5%, respectively, between the groups).

There were 12 severe hypoglycemic episodes in five patients (three islet-alone and two islet-after–kidney transplant group) during the initial trials, but no additional episodes occurred in either group during long-term follow-up.  

Overall, 53 individuals – 37 in the islet-alone and 16 in the islet-after–kidney transplant group – or 74% of the total, achieved a period of insulin independence with A1c under 7%, ranging from 36 to 481 days. The range of time to achieving insulin independence reflects individuals who received one, two, or three islet infusions.

The fact that most patients achieved insulin independence following just one (n = 20) or two (n = 30) infusions and only three patients required three infusions was notable, Dr. Rickels said.

“Currently, around the world, there’s an expectation of two to three donor pancreases being needed. Here, it’s one, maybe two. It’s a much more efficient protocol and opens up access for more islet transplantation as a hoped-for alternative to pancreas transplants.”

Of those who achieved insulin independence, 30 (57%) remained insulin-independent throughout follow-up (20 of 37 islet-alone and 10 of 16 islet-after–kidney transplant patients), with no difference in duration of insulin independence between the groups.

There were no deaths during post-transplant follow-up. Rates of serious adverse events were 0.31 and 0.43 per patient-year for the islet-after–kidney and islet-alone transplant groups, respectively. Of a total of 104 serious adverse events, 65 occurred during the initial trials and had been previously reported. Of the additional 39 serious adverse events that occurred during long-term follow-up, 11 were possibly due to immunosuppression and 27 were deemed unrelated to the procedures.

According to Dr. Rickels, “These are the most seriously affected patients, and you’d be expecting to see some hospitalizations in a population managed on immunosuppression therapy ... It’s important to note that none of the adverse events were related to the actual islet product. Also, kidney function remained stable during long-term follow-up in both cohorts, in fact, improving in those who had kidney transplants.”

Overall, he said, “This is a much less invasive procedure that opens itself up to significantly fewer complications than what many of these patients would otherwise require, a pancreas transplant, which involves major abdominal surgery.”

The investigators plan to submit these data as part of a biologic license application (BLA) to the FDA.

The research was supported by grants from JDRF, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Rickels has reported receiving consulting fees from Sernova and Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

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

Transplantation of cadaveric pancreatic islet cells resulted in graft survival and function with acceptable safety for up to 8 years in selected individuals with type 1 diabetes, new research finds.

The study is a long-term follow-up of two phase 3 pivotal trials from the Clinical Islet Transplantation Consortium of a purified human pancreatic islet cell product for treating people with type 1 diabetes.

One trial involved islet transplantation in 48 people who experienced severe hypoglycemia and hypoglycemic unawareness, and the other trial included 24 people who also experienced those complications and were already receiving immunosuppression following kidney transplant. The trials, both registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), met their primary efficacy and safety endpoints at 2- and 3-year timepoints.

The follow-up data have now been published in Diabetes Care by Michael Rickels, MD, and colleagues.

The procedure involved infusion through the hepatic portal vein of one or more purified human pancreatic islet products under standardized immunosuppression using methods that Dr. Rickels and colleagues have been developing since 2004. The approach involves multiple modalities to protect the islets prior to transplantation.

Among the 34 islet-alone and eight islet-after–kidney transplant recipients who entered the extended follow-up, durable graft survival allowing for achievement of glycemic targets occurred without severe hypoglycemia or adverse effects from immunosuppression.

The primary outcome, actuarial survival of graft islet function, was 56% at the maximum follow-up of 8.3 years for the islet-only transplantation group and 49% at 7.3 years for the islet-after–kidney transplantation group (P = .004).

The findings suggest that “in the long run, islet transplantation has efficacy, including among those who have had kidney transplants ... Most type 1 diabetes patients are improved tremendously with current insulin delivery systems ... but for those having the most difficulty controlling their blood sugar – and those whose diabetes has already been complicated by needing a kidney transplant – the outcomes we saw in this study are what we’ve been hoping to achieve for more than 20 years,” said Dr. Rickels in a statement from his institution, the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the initial trials at day 75 after the initial transplant, 87.5% of the islet-alone and 71% of the islet-after–kidney transplant group achieved hemoglobin A1c under 7%, and 85% and 54%, respectively, achieved A1c at or under 6.5%. At the end of maximal follow-up, 49% of islet-only transplant recipients maintained A1c under 7%, although none had A1c at or under 6.5%. For the islet-after–kidney transplant group, these proportions were 35% and 17%, respectively (P = .0017 for A1c under 7.0% and P < .0001 for A1c ≤ 6.5%, respectively, between the groups).

There were 12 severe hypoglycemic episodes in five patients (three islet-alone and two islet-after–kidney transplant group) during the initial trials, but no additional episodes occurred in either group during long-term follow-up.  

Overall, 53 individuals – 37 in the islet-alone and 16 in the islet-after–kidney transplant group – or 74% of the total, achieved a period of insulin independence with A1c under 7%, ranging from 36 to 481 days. The range of time to achieving insulin independence reflects individuals who received one, two, or three islet infusions.

The fact that most patients achieved insulin independence following just one (n = 20) or two (n = 30) infusions and only three patients required three infusions was notable, Dr. Rickels said.

“Currently, around the world, there’s an expectation of two to three donor pancreases being needed. Here, it’s one, maybe two. It’s a much more efficient protocol and opens up access for more islet transplantation as a hoped-for alternative to pancreas transplants.”

Of those who achieved insulin independence, 30 (57%) remained insulin-independent throughout follow-up (20 of 37 islet-alone and 10 of 16 islet-after–kidney transplant patients), with no difference in duration of insulin independence between the groups.

There were no deaths during post-transplant follow-up. Rates of serious adverse events were 0.31 and 0.43 per patient-year for the islet-after–kidney and islet-alone transplant groups, respectively. Of a total of 104 serious adverse events, 65 occurred during the initial trials and had been previously reported. Of the additional 39 serious adverse events that occurred during long-term follow-up, 11 were possibly due to immunosuppression and 27 were deemed unrelated to the procedures.

According to Dr. Rickels, “These are the most seriously affected patients, and you’d be expecting to see some hospitalizations in a population managed on immunosuppression therapy ... It’s important to note that none of the adverse events were related to the actual islet product. Also, kidney function remained stable during long-term follow-up in both cohorts, in fact, improving in those who had kidney transplants.”

Overall, he said, “This is a much less invasive procedure that opens itself up to significantly fewer complications than what many of these patients would otherwise require, a pancreas transplant, which involves major abdominal surgery.”

The investigators plan to submit these data as part of a biologic license application (BLA) to the FDA.

The research was supported by grants from JDRF, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Rickels has reported receiving consulting fees from Sernova and Vertex Pharmaceuticals.

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

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A majority of hospitalized patients at low risk for venous thromboembolism were unnecessarily treated with medication, based on data from more than 400 individuals.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is important, and current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that patients with high or moderate risk for VTE be treated with mechanical prophylaxis, and that pharmacological prophylaxis is not recommended for patients at high risk for bleeding, said Hui Chong Lau, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

However, the nature of VTE prophylaxis using a risk assessment score has not been explored, said Dr. Lau, a third-year resident in internal medicine at Crozer-Chester Medical Center, Upland, Penn.

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) and intermittent pneumatic compression are often used to reduce VTE risk during hospitalization, but for patients with low VTE risk, prophylaxis is not necessarily recommended, he said. In fact, overuse of chemical prophylaxis in low-risk patients can increase bleeding risk and contribute to patient discomfort in the form of additional needle sticks while hospitalized, Dr. Lau said in the presentation.

“We wanted to see how well physicians in the hospital used a risk assessment model to stratify patients,” and how well the patients were assigned to the correct prophylaxis, he explained.

Dr. Lau and colleagues reviewed data from 469 adult patients hospitalized at a single medical center who were hospitalized between January 2021 and June 2021. The researchers retrospectively performed risk assessment using the Padua prediction score. A score of less than 4 was considered low risk for VTE, and a score of 4 or higher was considered high risk.

In the study population, 180 patients were identified as low risk and 289 were considered high risk.

Based on the Padua score, 95% of the patients at high risk were on the correct prophylaxis, Dr. Lau said.

A total of 193 high-risk patients were on heparin. However, many of these patients had good kidney function, and could have been treated with enoxaparin instead; “this would have spared them two needle sticks per day,” Dr. Lau noted.

Of the 180 low-risk patients, 168 (93.3%) were on chemical prophylaxis, and should have been on mechanical prophylaxis, he said. Only 10 patients (5%) who were considered low risk were placed on mechanical prophylaxis.

Overall, 3.6% of all patients who received chemical VTE prophylaxis developed bleeding.

The results were limited by the retrospective design and use of data from a single center. However, the findings emphasize the need for better attention to VTE risk when considering prophylaxis, said Dr. Lau. “We have to have risk assessment every day,” during a hospital stay, and adjust treatment accordingly, he said.

“We are likely overusing chemical VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patients,” he concluded.

Additional research is needed to better understand the potential consequences of overusing chemical VTE, including not only bleeding risk, but also financial costs and patient discomfort, he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A rapid point-of-care test meant to help clinicians avoid overprescribing antibiotics can successfully distinguish biomarkers of bacterial infection from those of viral infection, a new study finds.

The fingerstick test, FebriDx, works by detecting myxovirus resistance protein A, which the body generates in response to viral infections, and C-reactive protein (CRP), which is associated with systemic bacterial or viral infection.

In a study of 520 adults and children with symptoms of acute respiratory illness who were treated in outpatient settings, the test correctly classified bacterial infections 93.2% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.9-97.0). The negative predictive value (NPV), or probability that a person with a negative test result was truly free of a bacterial infection, was 98.7% (95% CI, 96.9-99.4).

The findings of the study, which was sponsored by the test’s manufacturer, were published in JAMA Network Open).

The ability to rule out a bacterial cause “may provide clinicians with reassurance to withhold antibiotics when supported by the clinical assessment,” the researchers wrote.

They added that the ability to identify infections that may benefit from antibiotics and confidently rule out those that will not “is essential to optimizing clinical management and addressing global antimicrobial resistance.”
 

FDA concerned about false negative viral infection results

FebriDx has been cleared for sale in the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, and Australia, according to the manufacturer, Australia-based Lumos Diagnostics.

However, the product is not available in the United States, where the Food and Drug Administration denied marketing clearance in July. In a news release, Lumos said the FDA determined that FebriDx did not demonstrate “substantial equivalence” to a predicate device and expressed concern that false negative viral infection results could lead to missed cases of COVID-19.

In the newly published study, FebriDx identified individuals with viral infections 70.3% of the time (95% CI, 64.8-75.2). The probability that a person who tested negative for a viral infection was truly negative was 66.7% (95%CI, 60.8-72.1).

The study included patients with respiratory symptoms and recent fever who were enrolled from October 2019 to April 2021 at nine emergency departments, six urgent care clinics, and five primary care clinics in the United States. All patients were tested with FebriDx and underwent separate laboratory testing to determine a final diagnosis.

In addition, researchers recruited a control group of 120 individuals without symptoms.

Among 496 symptomatic individuals who had a final diagnosis, 73 (14.7%) were classified as having a response associated with a bacterial infection, 296 (59.7%) as having a viral-associated response, and 127 (25.6%) as negative.

FebriDx correctly ruled out a bacterial infection 88.4% of the time (95% CI, 85.0-91.1). The probability that a patient with a positive result for bacterial infection actually had a bacterial infection was 58.1% (95%CI, 49.1-66.7).

The findings bolster those of a previous study on the same test. This research included 220 patients who reported having a fever within the prior 3 days or had a measurable fever at the time of enrollment. In that study, the test correctly identified bacterial infections 85% of the time and correctly ruled out bacterial infection 93% of the time, with a NPV of 97%.
 

Too early to say test will be useful in practice

The idea of a test to guide the prescribing of antibiotics isn’t new, according to an expert who was not involved in FebriDx research.

Noah Ivers, MD, PhD, a family physician and associate professor at the University of Toronto who studies strategies to optimize primary care delivery, said, “many such point-of-care tests have been tried” to detect biomarkers such as CRP or procalcitonin, which is associated with bacterial infections.

A rapid point-of-care test meant to help clinicians avoid overprescribing antibiotics can successfully distinguish biomarkers of bacterial infection from those of viral infection, a new study finds.

The fingerstick test, FebriDx, works by detecting myxovirus resistance protein A, which the body generates in response to viral infections, and C-reactive protein (CRP), which is associated with systemic bacterial or viral infection.

In a study of 520 adults and children with symptoms of acute respiratory illness who were treated in outpatient settings, the test correctly classified bacterial infections 93.2% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.9-97.0). The negative predictive value (NPV), or probability that a person with a negative test result was truly free of a bacterial infection, was 98.7% (95% CI, 96.9-99.4).

The findings of the study, which was sponsored by the test’s manufacturer, were published in JAMA Network Open).

The ability to rule out a bacterial cause “may provide clinicians with reassurance to withhold antibiotics when supported by the clinical assessment,” the researchers wrote.

They added that the ability to identify infections that may benefit from antibiotics and confidently rule out those that will not “is essential to optimizing clinical management and addressing global antimicrobial resistance.”
 

FDA concerned about false negative viral infection results

FebriDx has been cleared for sale in the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, and Australia, according to the manufacturer, Australia-based Lumos Diagnostics.

However, the product is not available in the United States, where the Food and Drug Administration denied marketing clearance in July. In a news release, Lumos said the FDA determined that FebriDx did not demonstrate “substantial equivalence” to a predicate device and expressed concern that false negative viral infection results could lead to missed cases of COVID-19.

In the newly published study, FebriDx identified individuals with viral infections 70.3% of the time (95% CI, 64.8-75.2). The probability that a person who tested negative for a viral infection was truly negative was 66.7% (95%CI, 60.8-72.1).

The study included patients with respiratory symptoms and recent fever who were enrolled from October 2019 to April 2021 at nine emergency departments, six urgent care clinics, and five primary care clinics in the United States. All patients were tested with FebriDx and underwent separate laboratory testing to determine a final diagnosis.

In addition, researchers recruited a control group of 120 individuals without symptoms.

Among 496 symptomatic individuals who had a final diagnosis, 73 (14.7%) were classified as having a response associated with a bacterial infection, 296 (59.7%) as having a viral-associated response, and 127 (25.6%) as negative.

FebriDx correctly ruled out a bacterial infection 88.4% of the time (95% CI, 85.0-91.1). The probability that a patient with a positive result for bacterial infection actually had a bacterial infection was 58.1% (95%CI, 49.1-66.7).

The findings bolster those of a previous study on the same test. This research included 220 patients who reported having a fever within the prior 3 days or had a measurable fever at the time of enrollment. In that study, the test correctly identified bacterial infections 85% of the time and correctly ruled out bacterial infection 93% of the time, with a NPV of 97%.
 

Too early to say test will be useful in practice

The idea of a test to guide the prescribing of antibiotics isn’t new, according to an expert who was not involved in FebriDx research.

Noah Ivers, MD, PhD, a family physician and associate professor at the University of Toronto who studies strategies to optimize primary care delivery, said, “many such point-of-care tests have been tried” to detect biomarkers such as CRP or procalcitonin, which is associated with bacterial infections.

A rapid point-of-care test meant to help clinicians avoid overprescribing antibiotics can successfully distinguish biomarkers of bacterial infection from those of viral infection, a new study finds.

The fingerstick test, FebriDx, works by detecting myxovirus resistance protein A, which the body generates in response to viral infections, and C-reactive protein (CRP), which is associated with systemic bacterial or viral infection.

In a study of 520 adults and children with symptoms of acute respiratory illness who were treated in outpatient settings, the test correctly classified bacterial infections 93.2% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.9-97.0). The negative predictive value (NPV), or probability that a person with a negative test result was truly free of a bacterial infection, was 98.7% (95% CI, 96.9-99.4).

The findings of the study, which was sponsored by the test’s manufacturer, were published in JAMA Network Open).

The ability to rule out a bacterial cause “may provide clinicians with reassurance to withhold antibiotics when supported by the clinical assessment,” the researchers wrote.

They added that the ability to identify infections that may benefit from antibiotics and confidently rule out those that will not “is essential to optimizing clinical management and addressing global antimicrobial resistance.”
 

FDA concerned about false negative viral infection results

FebriDx has been cleared for sale in the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, and Australia, according to the manufacturer, Australia-based Lumos Diagnostics.

However, the product is not available in the United States, where the Food and Drug Administration denied marketing clearance in July. In a news release, Lumos said the FDA determined that FebriDx did not demonstrate “substantial equivalence” to a predicate device and expressed concern that false negative viral infection results could lead to missed cases of COVID-19.

In the newly published study, FebriDx identified individuals with viral infections 70.3% of the time (95% CI, 64.8-75.2). The probability that a person who tested negative for a viral infection was truly negative was 66.7% (95%CI, 60.8-72.1).

The study included patients with respiratory symptoms and recent fever who were enrolled from October 2019 to April 2021 at nine emergency departments, six urgent care clinics, and five primary care clinics in the United States. All patients were tested with FebriDx and underwent separate laboratory testing to determine a final diagnosis.

In addition, researchers recruited a control group of 120 individuals without symptoms.

Among 496 symptomatic individuals who had a final diagnosis, 73 (14.7%) were classified as having a response associated with a bacterial infection, 296 (59.7%) as having a viral-associated response, and 127 (25.6%) as negative.

FebriDx correctly ruled out a bacterial infection 88.4% of the time (95% CI, 85.0-91.1). The probability that a patient with a positive result for bacterial infection actually had a bacterial infection was 58.1% (95%CI, 49.1-66.7).

The findings bolster those of a previous study on the same test. This research included 220 patients who reported having a fever within the prior 3 days or had a measurable fever at the time of enrollment. In that study, the test correctly identified bacterial infections 85% of the time and correctly ruled out bacterial infection 93% of the time, with a NPV of 97%.
 

Too early to say test will be useful in practice

The idea of a test to guide the prescribing of antibiotics isn’t new, according to an expert who was not involved in FebriDx research.

Noah Ivers, MD, PhD, a family physician and associate professor at the University of Toronto who studies strategies to optimize primary care delivery, said, “many such point-of-care tests have been tried” to detect biomarkers such as CRP or procalcitonin, which is associated with bacterial infections.

Insulin rationing due to cost in the United States is common even among people with diabetes who have private health insurance, new data show.

The findings from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) suggest that about one in six people with insulin-treated diabetes in the United States practice insulin rationing – skipping doses, taking less insulin than needed, or delaying the purchase of insulin – because of the price.

Not surprisingly, those without insurance had the highest rationing rate, at nearly a third. However, those with private insurance also had higher rates, at nearly one in five, than those of the overall diabetes population. And those with public insurance – Medicare and Medicaid – had lower rates.

The finding regarding privately insured individuals was “somewhat surprising,” lead author Adam Gaffney, MD, told this news organization. But he noted that the finding likely reflects issues such as copays and deductibles, along with other barriers patients experience within the private health insurance system.

The authors pointed out that the $35 copay cap on insulin included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 might improve insulin access for Medicare beneficiaries but a similar cap for privately insured people was removed from the bill. Moreover, copay caps don’t help people who are uninsured.

And, although some states have also passed insulin copay caps that apply to privately insured people, “even a monthly cost of $35 can be a lot of money for people with low incomes. That isn’t negligible. It’s important to keep that in mind,” said Dr. Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance.

“Insulin rationing is frequently harmful and sometimes deadly. In the ICU, I have cared for patients who have life-threatening complications of diabetes because they couldn’t afford this life-saving drug. Universal access to insulin, without cost barriers, is urgently needed,” Dr. Gaffney said in a Public Citizen statement.

Senior author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, agrees. “Drug companies have ramped up prices on insulin year after year, even for products that remain completely unchanged,” she noted.

“Drug firms are making vast profits at the expense of the health, and even the lives, of patients,” noted Dr. Woolhandler, a distinguished professor at Hunter College, City University of New York, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard, and a research associate at Public Citizen.
 

Uninsured, privately insured, and younger people more likely to ration

Dr. Gaffney and colleagues’ findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is the first to examine insulin rationing across the United States among people with all diabetes types treated with insulin using the nationally representative NHIS data.

The results are consistent with those of previous studies, which have found similar rates of insulin rationing at a single U.S. institution and internationally among just those with type 1 diabetes, Dr. Gaffney noted.

In 2021, questions about insulin rationing were added to the NHIS for the first time.

The sample included 982 insulin users with diabetes, representing about 1.4 million U.S. adults with type 1 diabetes, 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes, and 0.4 million with other/unknown types.

Overall, 16.5% of participants – 1.3 million nationwide – reported skipping or reducing insulin doses or delaying the purchase of it in the past year. Delaying purchase was the most common type of rationing, reported by 14.2%, while taking less than needed was the most common practice among those with type 1 diabetes (16.5%).

Age made a difference, with 11.2% of adults aged 65 or older versus 20.4% of younger people reporting rationing. And by income level, even among those at the top level examined – 400% or higher of the federal poverty line – 10.8% reported rationing.

“The high-income group is not necessarily rich. Many would be considered middle-income,” Dr. Gaffney pointed out.  

By race, 23.2% of Black participants reported rationing compared with 16.0% of White and Hispanic individuals.

People without insurance had the highest rationing rate (29.2%), followed by those with private insurance (18.8%), other coverage (16.1%), Medicare (13.5%), and Medicaid (11.6%).
 

‘It’s a complicated system’

Dr. Gaffney noted that even when the patient has private insurance, it’s challenging for the clinician to know in advance whether there are formulary restrictions on what type of insulin can be prescribed or what the patient’s copay or deductible will be.

“Often the prescription gets written without clear knowledge of coverage beforehand ... Coverage differs from patient to patient, from insurance to insurance. It’s a complicated system.”

He added, though, that some electronic health records (EHRs) incorporate this information. “Currently, some EHRs give real-time feedback. I see no reason why, for all the money we plug into these EHRs, there couldn’t be real-time feedback for every patient so you know what the copay is and whether it’s covered at the time you’re prescribing it. To me that’s a very straightforward technological fix that we could achieve. We have the information, but it’s hard to act on it.”

But beyond the EHR, “there are also problems when the patient’s insurance changes or their network changes, and what insulin is covered changes. And they don’t necessarily get that new prescription in time. And suddenly they have a gap. Gaps can be dangerous.”  

What’s more, Dr. Gaffney noted: “The study raises concerning questions about what happens when the public health emergency ends and millions of people with Medicaid lose their coverage. Where are they going to get insulin? That’s another population we have to be worried about.”

All of this puts clinicians in a difficult spot, he said.

“They want the best for their patients but they’re working in a system that’s not letting them focus on practicing medicine and instead is forcing them to think about these economic issues that are in large part out of their control.”

Dr. Gaffney is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer health system in the United States.

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

Insulin rationing due to cost in the United States is common even among people with diabetes who have private health insurance, new data show.

The findings from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) suggest that about one in six people with insulin-treated diabetes in the United States practice insulin rationing – skipping doses, taking less insulin than needed, or delaying the purchase of insulin – because of the price.

Not surprisingly, those without insurance had the highest rationing rate, at nearly a third. However, those with private insurance also had higher rates, at nearly one in five, than those of the overall diabetes population. And those with public insurance – Medicare and Medicaid – had lower rates.

The finding regarding privately insured individuals was “somewhat surprising,” lead author Adam Gaffney, MD, told this news organization. But he noted that the finding likely reflects issues such as copays and deductibles, along with other barriers patients experience within the private health insurance system.

The authors pointed out that the $35 copay cap on insulin included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 might improve insulin access for Medicare beneficiaries but a similar cap for privately insured people was removed from the bill. Moreover, copay caps don’t help people who are uninsured.

And, although some states have also passed insulin copay caps that apply to privately insured people, “even a monthly cost of $35 can be a lot of money for people with low incomes. That isn’t negligible. It’s important to keep that in mind,” said Dr. Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance.

“Insulin rationing is frequently harmful and sometimes deadly. In the ICU, I have cared for patients who have life-threatening complications of diabetes because they couldn’t afford this life-saving drug. Universal access to insulin, without cost barriers, is urgently needed,” Dr. Gaffney said in a Public Citizen statement.

Senior author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, agrees. “Drug companies have ramped up prices on insulin year after year, even for products that remain completely unchanged,” she noted.

“Drug firms are making vast profits at the expense of the health, and even the lives, of patients,” noted Dr. Woolhandler, a distinguished professor at Hunter College, City University of New York, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard, and a research associate at Public Citizen.
 

Uninsured, privately insured, and younger people more likely to ration

Dr. Gaffney and colleagues’ findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is the first to examine insulin rationing across the United States among people with all diabetes types treated with insulin using the nationally representative NHIS data.

The results are consistent with those of previous studies, which have found similar rates of insulin rationing at a single U.S. institution and internationally among just those with type 1 diabetes, Dr. Gaffney noted.

In 2021, questions about insulin rationing were added to the NHIS for the first time.

The sample included 982 insulin users with diabetes, representing about 1.4 million U.S. adults with type 1 diabetes, 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes, and 0.4 million with other/unknown types.

Overall, 16.5% of participants – 1.3 million nationwide – reported skipping or reducing insulin doses or delaying the purchase of it in the past year. Delaying purchase was the most common type of rationing, reported by 14.2%, while taking less than needed was the most common practice among those with type 1 diabetes (16.5%).

Age made a difference, with 11.2% of adults aged 65 or older versus 20.4% of younger people reporting rationing. And by income level, even among those at the top level examined – 400% or higher of the federal poverty line – 10.8% reported rationing.

“The high-income group is not necessarily rich. Many would be considered middle-income,” Dr. Gaffney pointed out.  

By race, 23.2% of Black participants reported rationing compared with 16.0% of White and Hispanic individuals.

People without insurance had the highest rationing rate (29.2%), followed by those with private insurance (18.8%), other coverage (16.1%), Medicare (13.5%), and Medicaid (11.6%).
 

‘It’s a complicated system’

Dr. Gaffney noted that even when the patient has private insurance, it’s challenging for the clinician to know in advance whether there are formulary restrictions on what type of insulin can be prescribed or what the patient’s copay or deductible will be.

“Often the prescription gets written without clear knowledge of coverage beforehand ... Coverage differs from patient to patient, from insurance to insurance. It’s a complicated system.”

He added, though, that some electronic health records (EHRs) incorporate this information. “Currently, some EHRs give real-time feedback. I see no reason why, for all the money we plug into these EHRs, there couldn’t be real-time feedback for every patient so you know what the copay is and whether it’s covered at the time you’re prescribing it. To me that’s a very straightforward technological fix that we could achieve. We have the information, but it’s hard to act on it.”

But beyond the EHR, “there are also problems when the patient’s insurance changes or their network changes, and what insulin is covered changes. And they don’t necessarily get that new prescription in time. And suddenly they have a gap. Gaps can be dangerous.”  

What’s more, Dr. Gaffney noted: “The study raises concerning questions about what happens when the public health emergency ends and millions of people with Medicaid lose their coverage. Where are they going to get insulin? That’s another population we have to be worried about.”

All of this puts clinicians in a difficult spot, he said.

“They want the best for their patients but they’re working in a system that’s not letting them focus on practicing medicine and instead is forcing them to think about these economic issues that are in large part out of their control.”

Dr. Gaffney is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer health system in the United States.

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

Insulin rationing due to cost in the United States is common even among people with diabetes who have private health insurance, new data show.

The findings from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) suggest that about one in six people with insulin-treated diabetes in the United States practice insulin rationing – skipping doses, taking less insulin than needed, or delaying the purchase of insulin – because of the price.

Not surprisingly, those without insurance had the highest rationing rate, at nearly a third. However, those with private insurance also had higher rates, at nearly one in five, than those of the overall diabetes population. And those with public insurance – Medicare and Medicaid – had lower rates.

The finding regarding privately insured individuals was “somewhat surprising,” lead author Adam Gaffney, MD, told this news organization. But he noted that the finding likely reflects issues such as copays and deductibles, along with other barriers patients experience within the private health insurance system.

The authors pointed out that the $35 copay cap on insulin included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 might improve insulin access for Medicare beneficiaries but a similar cap for privately insured people was removed from the bill. Moreover, copay caps don’t help people who are uninsured.

And, although some states have also passed insulin copay caps that apply to privately insured people, “even a monthly cost of $35 can be a lot of money for people with low incomes. That isn’t negligible. It’s important to keep that in mind,” said Dr. Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Cambridge (Mass.) Health Alliance.

“Insulin rationing is frequently harmful and sometimes deadly. In the ICU, I have cared for patients who have life-threatening complications of diabetes because they couldn’t afford this life-saving drug. Universal access to insulin, without cost barriers, is urgently needed,” Dr. Gaffney said in a Public Citizen statement.

Senior author Steffie Woolhandler, MD, agrees. “Drug companies have ramped up prices on insulin year after year, even for products that remain completely unchanged,” she noted.

“Drug firms are making vast profits at the expense of the health, and even the lives, of patients,” noted Dr. Woolhandler, a distinguished professor at Hunter College, City University of New York, a lecturer in medicine at Harvard, and a research associate at Public Citizen.
 

Uninsured, privately insured, and younger people more likely to ration

Dr. Gaffney and colleagues’ findings were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The study is the first to examine insulin rationing across the United States among people with all diabetes types treated with insulin using the nationally representative NHIS data.

The results are consistent with those of previous studies, which have found similar rates of insulin rationing at a single U.S. institution and internationally among just those with type 1 diabetes, Dr. Gaffney noted.

In 2021, questions about insulin rationing were added to the NHIS for the first time.

The sample included 982 insulin users with diabetes, representing about 1.4 million U.S. adults with type 1 diabetes, 5.8 million with type 2 diabetes, and 0.4 million with other/unknown types.

Overall, 16.5% of participants – 1.3 million nationwide – reported skipping or reducing insulin doses or delaying the purchase of it in the past year. Delaying purchase was the most common type of rationing, reported by 14.2%, while taking less than needed was the most common practice among those with type 1 diabetes (16.5%).

Age made a difference, with 11.2% of adults aged 65 or older versus 20.4% of younger people reporting rationing. And by income level, even among those at the top level examined – 400% or higher of the federal poverty line – 10.8% reported rationing.

“The high-income group is not necessarily rich. Many would be considered middle-income,” Dr. Gaffney pointed out.  

By race, 23.2% of Black participants reported rationing compared with 16.0% of White and Hispanic individuals.

People without insurance had the highest rationing rate (29.2%), followed by those with private insurance (18.8%), other coverage (16.1%), Medicare (13.5%), and Medicaid (11.6%).
 

‘It’s a complicated system’

Dr. Gaffney noted that even when the patient has private insurance, it’s challenging for the clinician to know in advance whether there are formulary restrictions on what type of insulin can be prescribed or what the patient’s copay or deductible will be.

“Often the prescription gets written without clear knowledge of coverage beforehand ... Coverage differs from patient to patient, from insurance to insurance. It’s a complicated system.”

He added, though, that some electronic health records (EHRs) incorporate this information. “Currently, some EHRs give real-time feedback. I see no reason why, for all the money we plug into these EHRs, there couldn’t be real-time feedback for every patient so you know what the copay is and whether it’s covered at the time you’re prescribing it. To me that’s a very straightforward technological fix that we could achieve. We have the information, but it’s hard to act on it.”

But beyond the EHR, “there are also problems when the patient’s insurance changes or their network changes, and what insulin is covered changes. And they don’t necessarily get that new prescription in time. And suddenly they have a gap. Gaps can be dangerous.”  

What’s more, Dr. Gaffney noted: “The study raises concerning questions about what happens when the public health emergency ends and millions of people with Medicaid lose their coverage. Where are they going to get insulin? That’s another population we have to be worried about.”

All of this puts clinicians in a difficult spot, he said.

“They want the best for their patients but they’re working in a system that’s not letting them focus on practicing medicine and instead is forcing them to think about these economic issues that are in large part out of their control.”

Dr. Gaffney is a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer health system in the United States.

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

NASHVILLE – The first multicenter randomized controlled trial of a home-based rehabilitation program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) showed highly positive results, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

At the end of 12 weeks, those randomly assigned to the intervention had a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), including activity levels and emotional well-being, reported Roberto P. Benzo, MD, a consultant in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Presenting soon-to-be-published data, Dr. Benzo said that the intervention is based on a tablet-based app. On the tablet, the patient finds a daily schedule of exercises and videos to guide performance. The tablet is programmed to upload data captured from an activity monitor and pulse oximeter. Along with documentation of app usage, this information can then be downloaded for the remote coach to review with the patient.

The primary outcome of the randomized study were the physical and emotional domains of the CRQ quality of life, but a long list of secondary outcomes – including physical activity, symptoms of depression, sleep quality, and health care utilization, such as emergency room visits – was also analyzed.

In addition to the significant benefit on the primary outcomes, the home-based rehabilitation program relative to a wait list for intervention was associated with benefit or a trend for benefit on essentially every outcome measured. Health care utilization was a possible exception, but even then, the absolute number of visits was lower in the treatment arm.

“With a study period of only 12 weeks, we were limited to our ability to show a difference in emergency room visits,” said Dr. Benzo, who also noted that the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when hospital visits were already occurring at a lower than usual rate. Based on the other findings, he suspects that a reduction in health care utilization could also be shown in more typical circumstances, particularly with a longer follow-up.

In the study, 375 patients with COPD were randomly assigned to a home health care regimen delivered by an app with remote coaching or to a wait list and usual care. The median age was 69 years. Fifty-nine percent were women. The median FEV₁ at enrollment was 45% of predicted.

The patients were able to access their own data to monitor their progress at any time, not just at the time of coaching, but contact with the remote coach occurred on a weekly basis. Patients rated their level of energy, how they felt generally, and their progress toward daily goals, which was also captured on the app and could be discussed with the coach during the review of the previous week’s activity.

At 12 weeks, the favorable 0.54-point change (P < .001) and 0.51 change (P < .001) in the physical and emotional summary scores, respectively, met the criteria for a clinically meaningful change, Dr. Benzo reported. There were also significantly favorable changes from baseline and relative to controls in CRQ domains of self-management, sleep quality, and depression (all P ≤ .01).

Other data collected are supportive. For example, Dr. Benzo reported that those in the rehabilitation group took 624 more steps on average per day than those in the control group. The experimental group also spent nearly an hour more performing moderate or greater levels of activity.

“The app promotes behavioral change,” said Dr. Benzo, who said that this “completely home-based model” of rehabilitation is likely to be cost-effective given the relatively low costs of remote coaching and reasonable costs of the activity monitor, tablet, and other equipment.

Importantly, home-based rehabilitation is a billable practice under currently available CPT codes, according to Dr. Benzo, who believes this approach is not only effective but “feasible and practical.”

Two clinicians active in the care of patients with COPD believe this approach could fulfill an unmet need if further validated. Andrew Berman, MD, professor of medicine, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, thinks the premise is sound.

“Digital competency is still a big issue as is access to adequate quality Internet, but this could be a very useful approach for many individuals, and it avoids visits to a center, which could be a big advantage for patients,” Dr. Berman said.

Abebaw M. Johannes, PhD, a professor of physical therapy at Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, Calif., agreed. He said that home-based remote coaching could be a way of overcoming the current hurdles of participating in institutional-based programs

“This is clearly an unmet need in COPD,” he said.

The development of more effective and patient-friendly programs is what was driving this research, according to Dr. Benzo. He cited data suggesting that only about 30% of patients with COPD are participating in rehabilitation programs once discharged from the hospital despite the evidence that they can improve quality of life. For many of these patients, a home-based program might be the answer.

Dr. Benzo, Dr. Berman, and Dr. Johannes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE – The first multicenter randomized controlled trial of a home-based rehabilitation program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) showed highly positive results, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

At the end of 12 weeks, those randomly assigned to the intervention had a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), including activity levels and emotional well-being, reported Roberto P. Benzo, MD, a consultant in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Presenting soon-to-be-published data, Dr. Benzo said that the intervention is based on a tablet-based app. On the tablet, the patient finds a daily schedule of exercises and videos to guide performance. The tablet is programmed to upload data captured from an activity monitor and pulse oximeter. Along with documentation of app usage, this information can then be downloaded for the remote coach to review with the patient.

The primary outcome of the randomized study were the physical and emotional domains of the CRQ quality of life, but a long list of secondary outcomes – including physical activity, symptoms of depression, sleep quality, and health care utilization, such as emergency room visits – was also analyzed.

In addition to the significant benefit on the primary outcomes, the home-based rehabilitation program relative to a wait list for intervention was associated with benefit or a trend for benefit on essentially every outcome measured. Health care utilization was a possible exception, but even then, the absolute number of visits was lower in the treatment arm.

“With a study period of only 12 weeks, we were limited to our ability to show a difference in emergency room visits,” said Dr. Benzo, who also noted that the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when hospital visits were already occurring at a lower than usual rate. Based on the other findings, he suspects that a reduction in health care utilization could also be shown in more typical circumstances, particularly with a longer follow-up.

In the study, 375 patients with COPD were randomly assigned to a home health care regimen delivered by an app with remote coaching or to a wait list and usual care. The median age was 69 years. Fifty-nine percent were women. The median FEV₁ at enrollment was 45% of predicted.

The patients were able to access their own data to monitor their progress at any time, not just at the time of coaching, but contact with the remote coach occurred on a weekly basis. Patients rated their level of energy, how they felt generally, and their progress toward daily goals, which was also captured on the app and could be discussed with the coach during the review of the previous week’s activity.

At 12 weeks, the favorable 0.54-point change (P < .001) and 0.51 change (P < .001) in the physical and emotional summary scores, respectively, met the criteria for a clinically meaningful change, Dr. Benzo reported. There were also significantly favorable changes from baseline and relative to controls in CRQ domains of self-management, sleep quality, and depression (all P ≤ .01).

Other data collected are supportive. For example, Dr. Benzo reported that those in the rehabilitation group took 624 more steps on average per day than those in the control group. The experimental group also spent nearly an hour more performing moderate or greater levels of activity.

“The app promotes behavioral change,” said Dr. Benzo, who said that this “completely home-based model” of rehabilitation is likely to be cost-effective given the relatively low costs of remote coaching and reasonable costs of the activity monitor, tablet, and other equipment.

Importantly, home-based rehabilitation is a billable practice under currently available CPT codes, according to Dr. Benzo, who believes this approach is not only effective but “feasible and practical.”

Two clinicians active in the care of patients with COPD believe this approach could fulfill an unmet need if further validated. Andrew Berman, MD, professor of medicine, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, thinks the premise is sound.

“Digital competency is still a big issue as is access to adequate quality Internet, but this could be a very useful approach for many individuals, and it avoids visits to a center, which could be a big advantage for patients,” Dr. Berman said.

Abebaw M. Johannes, PhD, a professor of physical therapy at Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, Calif., agreed. He said that home-based remote coaching could be a way of overcoming the current hurdles of participating in institutional-based programs

“This is clearly an unmet need in COPD,” he said.

The development of more effective and patient-friendly programs is what was driving this research, according to Dr. Benzo. He cited data suggesting that only about 30% of patients with COPD are participating in rehabilitation programs once discharged from the hospital despite the evidence that they can improve quality of life. For many of these patients, a home-based program might be the answer.

Dr. Benzo, Dr. Berman, and Dr. Johannes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

NASHVILLE – The first multicenter randomized controlled trial of a home-based rehabilitation program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) showed highly positive results, according to findings presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

At the end of 12 weeks, those randomly assigned to the intervention had a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ), including activity levels and emotional well-being, reported Roberto P. Benzo, MD, a consultant in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Presenting soon-to-be-published data, Dr. Benzo said that the intervention is based on a tablet-based app. On the tablet, the patient finds a daily schedule of exercises and videos to guide performance. The tablet is programmed to upload data captured from an activity monitor and pulse oximeter. Along with documentation of app usage, this information can then be downloaded for the remote coach to review with the patient.

The primary outcome of the randomized study were the physical and emotional domains of the CRQ quality of life, but a long list of secondary outcomes – including physical activity, symptoms of depression, sleep quality, and health care utilization, such as emergency room visits – was also analyzed.

In addition to the significant benefit on the primary outcomes, the home-based rehabilitation program relative to a wait list for intervention was associated with benefit or a trend for benefit on essentially every outcome measured. Health care utilization was a possible exception, but even then, the absolute number of visits was lower in the treatment arm.

“With a study period of only 12 weeks, we were limited to our ability to show a difference in emergency room visits,” said Dr. Benzo, who also noted that the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when hospital visits were already occurring at a lower than usual rate. Based on the other findings, he suspects that a reduction in health care utilization could also be shown in more typical circumstances, particularly with a longer follow-up.

In the study, 375 patients with COPD were randomly assigned to a home health care regimen delivered by an app with remote coaching or to a wait list and usual care. The median age was 69 years. Fifty-nine percent were women. The median FEV₁ at enrollment was 45% of predicted.

The patients were able to access their own data to monitor their progress at any time, not just at the time of coaching, but contact with the remote coach occurred on a weekly basis. Patients rated their level of energy, how they felt generally, and their progress toward daily goals, which was also captured on the app and could be discussed with the coach during the review of the previous week’s activity.

At 12 weeks, the favorable 0.54-point change (P < .001) and 0.51 change (P < .001) in the physical and emotional summary scores, respectively, met the criteria for a clinically meaningful change, Dr. Benzo reported. There were also significantly favorable changes from baseline and relative to controls in CRQ domains of self-management, sleep quality, and depression (all P ≤ .01).

Other data collected are supportive. For example, Dr. Benzo reported that those in the rehabilitation group took 624 more steps on average per day than those in the control group. The experimental group also spent nearly an hour more performing moderate or greater levels of activity.

“The app promotes behavioral change,” said Dr. Benzo, who said that this “completely home-based model” of rehabilitation is likely to be cost-effective given the relatively low costs of remote coaching and reasonable costs of the activity monitor, tablet, and other equipment.

Importantly, home-based rehabilitation is a billable practice under currently available CPT codes, according to Dr. Benzo, who believes this approach is not only effective but “feasible and practical.”

Two clinicians active in the care of patients with COPD believe this approach could fulfill an unmet need if further validated. Andrew Berman, MD, professor of medicine, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, thinks the premise is sound.

“Digital competency is still a big issue as is access to adequate quality Internet, but this could be a very useful approach for many individuals, and it avoids visits to a center, which could be a big advantage for patients,” Dr. Berman said.

Abebaw M. Johannes, PhD, a professor of physical therapy at Azusa Pacific University, Azusa, Calif., agreed. He said that home-based remote coaching could be a way of overcoming the current hurdles of participating in institutional-based programs

“This is clearly an unmet need in COPD,” he said.

The development of more effective and patient-friendly programs is what was driving this research, according to Dr. Benzo. He cited data suggesting that only about 30% of patients with COPD are participating in rehabilitation programs once discharged from the hospital despite the evidence that they can improve quality of life. For many of these patients, a home-based program might be the answer.

Dr. Benzo, Dr. Berman, and Dr. Johannes reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Apixaban offers greater protection than rivaroxaban against ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and bleeding in patients with both atrial fibrillation (AFib) and valvular heart disease (VHD), a new study finds.

Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.

In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.

The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.

“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
 

Study results

Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).

Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.

The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.

“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
 

Head-to-head trial needed to change practice

Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”

Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.

“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”

Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.

The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.

Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.

“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.

On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.

More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Treatment with transcutaneous, focused ultrasound safely led to the repositioning and rupture of a majority of stones in the ureter when tested in 29 people at two U.S. centers in the first human feasibility study of the technology.*

The results “support the efficacy and safety of using ultrasonic propulsion and burst wave lithotripsy [BWL] to reposition and break ureteral stones, potentially relieving pain and facilitating passage in awake patients,” write M. Kennedy Hall, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, and co-authors in a report published in the Journal of Urology.

“This is the first human trial in awake subjects” of this method for nonsurgically facilitating ureteral stone clearance, and the results of limited patient discomfort and stone motion in 66% of treated patients seem “almost too good to be true,” comments Karen L. Stern, MD, a urologist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, in an accompanying editorial.

However, Dr. Stern notes two study limitations. First, to correctly target the focused ultrasound clinicians first need to visualize a stone with ultrasound. However, “most urologists are not experienced in ultrasound,” a limitation that could mean the treatment may be more likely performed by emergency physicians or radiologists in the future.

Second, the study had no control patients, and Dr. Stern cautions that the clinical significance of BWL cannot be definitively assessed without a randomized trial that directly compares the new method with either spontaneous stone passage or medical expulsion therapy.

“The authors showed a distal ureteral stone passage [rate] of 81%, but those stones passed within days, not minutes, of the procedure, and that rate is not too far off published data on spontaneous passage,” Dr. Stern notes in her editorial.*

Despite these caveats, Dr. Stern calls the potential for BWL “immense.”
 

Ultrasound for 10 minutes or less

The study enrolled adults who presented to the University of Washington emergency department or endo-urology clinic with a proximal or distal ureteral stone. Twenty-nine awake, unanesthetized patients in whom clinicians had an unobstructed view of a stone in the focal zone received ultrasound treatment performed by trained personnel.

Treatment involved ultrasound bursts of up to 3 seconds for stone propulsion and 30 seconds at a time for BWL. Total ultrasound exposure could not exceed 10 minutes, and no patient underwent more than one treatment. Sixteen patients received treatment for propulsion only, and 13 received both propulsion and BWL treatments.

The primary outcome was stone motion, which occurred in 19 of the 29 patients (66%). A prespecified secondary outcome was passage of the stone in the 26 patients with distal stones. Among the 21 patients with at least 14 days of follow-up, passage occurred in 18 (86%) after an average of 3.9 days following treatment. The researchers also confirmed stone fragmentation in five of the 13 patients (38%) who received BWL treatment.

The researchers infer that ultrasound treatment facilitated stone passage by stone propulsion, fragmentation, and peristalsis.

Mathew D. Sorensen, MD, a study co-investigator, likened the effect of ultrasound on the stones to a leaf blower on garden debris.

“Essentially, we use the acoustic energy of ultrasound, which gets focused on the stone and creates movement, like a blower,” said Dr. Sorensen, a urologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “A push of energy lasts a second or two, sort of a sweeping movement to try to get fragments to move out of what’s usually the bottom of the kidney, toward the exit. Because the energy moves in one way, away from the probe, it’s sort of like playing pool,” he explained.

All 29 treated patients in the current study tolerated the procedure, and none experienced unanticipated events. No patients needed to visit the emergency department or an intervention because of the treatment, and there were no observed ureter injuries.
 

Pain scores dropped significantly, procedure is ‘nearly painless’

Assessment of pain scores by each patient before and after treatment showed overall significant decreases in both mean and median scores, with 10 patients reporting decreased pain and two reporting increased pain.

When discomfort occurred during the procedure it was described by patients as either similar to a pinprick or as a referred sensation to pass urine and the stone. These effects occurred during 18 of 820 (2%) total propulsive bursts of ultrasound administered.

“It’s nearly painless, and you can do it while the patient is awake, and without sedation, which is critical,” said Dr. Hall in a statement from the University of Washington School of Medicine. He envisions eventually performing the procedure in a clinic or emergency department setting.

All three patients with a proximal stone and three patients with a distal stone who did not pass their stone after treatment underwent surgical stone removal.

The researchers acknowledge that a lack of a control group was a study limitation. They cite a historical, spontaneous stone passage rate of 54% included in a 2016 guideline from the American Urological Association and based on a meta-analysis of 27 studies with 1,205 total patients.

The study was funded by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which is interested in having a technology available to treat ureteral stones that may develop during prolonged space travel.

The study received no commercial funding. Four of the study’s 23 authors, including Dr. Sorensen, are consultants to and hold equity in SonoMotion, a company that has licensed the tested technology from the University of Washington for commercial development. The report did not identify a specific manufacturer of the ultrasound equipment used for treatment.

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

*Correction, 10/21/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the stones. They were in the ureter.

Treatment with transcutaneous, focused ultrasound safely led to the repositioning and rupture of a majority of stones in the ureter when tested in 29 people at two U.S. centers in the first human feasibility study of the technology.*

The results “support the efficacy and safety of using ultrasonic propulsion and burst wave lithotripsy [BWL] to reposition and break ureteral stones, potentially relieving pain and facilitating passage in awake patients,” write M. Kennedy Hall, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, and co-authors in a report published in the Journal of Urology.

“This is the first human trial in awake subjects” of this method for nonsurgically facilitating ureteral stone clearance, and the results of limited patient discomfort and stone motion in 66% of treated patients seem “almost too good to be true,” comments Karen L. Stern, MD, a urologist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, in an accompanying editorial.

However, Dr. Stern notes two study limitations. First, to correctly target the focused ultrasound clinicians first need to visualize a stone with ultrasound. However, “most urologists are not experienced in ultrasound,” a limitation that could mean the treatment may be more likely performed by emergency physicians or radiologists in the future.

Second, the study had no control patients, and Dr. Stern cautions that the clinical significance of BWL cannot be definitively assessed without a randomized trial that directly compares the new method with either spontaneous stone passage or medical expulsion therapy.

“The authors showed a distal ureteral stone passage [rate] of 81%, but those stones passed within days, not minutes, of the procedure, and that rate is not too far off published data on spontaneous passage,” Dr. Stern notes in her editorial.*

Despite these caveats, Dr. Stern calls the potential for BWL “immense.”
 

Ultrasound for 10 minutes or less

The study enrolled adults who presented to the University of Washington emergency department or endo-urology clinic with a proximal or distal ureteral stone. Twenty-nine awake, unanesthetized patients in whom clinicians had an unobstructed view of a stone in the focal zone received ultrasound treatment performed by trained personnel.

Treatment involved ultrasound bursts of up to 3 seconds for stone propulsion and 30 seconds at a time for BWL. Total ultrasound exposure could not exceed 10 minutes, and no patient underwent more than one treatment. Sixteen patients received treatment for propulsion only, and 13 received both propulsion and BWL treatments.

The primary outcome was stone motion, which occurred in 19 of the 29 patients (66%). A prespecified secondary outcome was passage of the stone in the 26 patients with distal stones. Among the 21 patients with at least 14 days of follow-up, passage occurred in 18 (86%) after an average of 3.9 days following treatment. The researchers also confirmed stone fragmentation in five of the 13 patients (38%) who received BWL treatment.

The researchers infer that ultrasound treatment facilitated stone passage by stone propulsion, fragmentation, and peristalsis.

Mathew D. Sorensen, MD, a study co-investigator, likened the effect of ultrasound on the stones to a leaf blower on garden debris.

“Essentially, we use the acoustic energy of ultrasound, which gets focused on the stone and creates movement, like a blower,” said Dr. Sorensen, a urologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “A push of energy lasts a second or two, sort of a sweeping movement to try to get fragments to move out of what’s usually the bottom of the kidney, toward the exit. Because the energy moves in one way, away from the probe, it’s sort of like playing pool,” he explained.

All 29 treated patients in the current study tolerated the procedure, and none experienced unanticipated events. No patients needed to visit the emergency department or an intervention because of the treatment, and there were no observed ureter injuries.
 

Pain scores dropped significantly, procedure is ‘nearly painless’

Assessment of pain scores by each patient before and after treatment showed overall significant decreases in both mean and median scores, with 10 patients reporting decreased pain and two reporting increased pain.

When discomfort occurred during the procedure it was described by patients as either similar to a pinprick or as a referred sensation to pass urine and the stone. These effects occurred during 18 of 820 (2%) total propulsive bursts of ultrasound administered.

“It’s nearly painless, and you can do it while the patient is awake, and without sedation, which is critical,” said Dr. Hall in a statement from the University of Washington School of Medicine. He envisions eventually performing the procedure in a clinic or emergency department setting.

All three patients with a proximal stone and three patients with a distal stone who did not pass their stone after treatment underwent surgical stone removal.

The researchers acknowledge that a lack of a control group was a study limitation. They cite a historical, spontaneous stone passage rate of 54% included in a 2016 guideline from the American Urological Association and based on a meta-analysis of 27 studies with 1,205 total patients.

The study was funded by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which is interested in having a technology available to treat ureteral stones that may develop during prolonged space travel.

The study received no commercial funding. Four of the study’s 23 authors, including Dr. Sorensen, are consultants to and hold equity in SonoMotion, a company that has licensed the tested technology from the University of Washington for commercial development. The report did not identify a specific manufacturer of the ultrasound equipment used for treatment.

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

*Correction, 10/21/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the stones. They were in the ureter.

Treatment with transcutaneous, focused ultrasound safely led to the repositioning and rupture of a majority of stones in the ureter when tested in 29 people at two U.S. centers in the first human feasibility study of the technology.*

The results “support the efficacy and safety of using ultrasonic propulsion and burst wave lithotripsy [BWL] to reposition and break ureteral stones, potentially relieving pain and facilitating passage in awake patients,” write M. Kennedy Hall, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, and co-authors in a report published in the Journal of Urology.

“This is the first human trial in awake subjects” of this method for nonsurgically facilitating ureteral stone clearance, and the results of limited patient discomfort and stone motion in 66% of treated patients seem “almost too good to be true,” comments Karen L. Stern, MD, a urologist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, in an accompanying editorial.

However, Dr. Stern notes two study limitations. First, to correctly target the focused ultrasound clinicians first need to visualize a stone with ultrasound. However, “most urologists are not experienced in ultrasound,” a limitation that could mean the treatment may be more likely performed by emergency physicians or radiologists in the future.

Second, the study had no control patients, and Dr. Stern cautions that the clinical significance of BWL cannot be definitively assessed without a randomized trial that directly compares the new method with either spontaneous stone passage or medical expulsion therapy.

“The authors showed a distal ureteral stone passage [rate] of 81%, but those stones passed within days, not minutes, of the procedure, and that rate is not too far off published data on spontaneous passage,” Dr. Stern notes in her editorial.*

Despite these caveats, Dr. Stern calls the potential for BWL “immense.”
 

Ultrasound for 10 minutes or less

The study enrolled adults who presented to the University of Washington emergency department or endo-urology clinic with a proximal or distal ureteral stone. Twenty-nine awake, unanesthetized patients in whom clinicians had an unobstructed view of a stone in the focal zone received ultrasound treatment performed by trained personnel.

Treatment involved ultrasound bursts of up to 3 seconds for stone propulsion and 30 seconds at a time for BWL. Total ultrasound exposure could not exceed 10 minutes, and no patient underwent more than one treatment. Sixteen patients received treatment for propulsion only, and 13 received both propulsion and BWL treatments.

The primary outcome was stone motion, which occurred in 19 of the 29 patients (66%). A prespecified secondary outcome was passage of the stone in the 26 patients with distal stones. Among the 21 patients with at least 14 days of follow-up, passage occurred in 18 (86%) after an average of 3.9 days following treatment. The researchers also confirmed stone fragmentation in five of the 13 patients (38%) who received BWL treatment.

The researchers infer that ultrasound treatment facilitated stone passage by stone propulsion, fragmentation, and peristalsis.

Mathew D. Sorensen, MD, a study co-investigator, likened the effect of ultrasound on the stones to a leaf blower on garden debris.

“Essentially, we use the acoustic energy of ultrasound, which gets focused on the stone and creates movement, like a blower,” said Dr. Sorensen, a urologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “A push of energy lasts a second or two, sort of a sweeping movement to try to get fragments to move out of what’s usually the bottom of the kidney, toward the exit. Because the energy moves in one way, away from the probe, it’s sort of like playing pool,” he explained.

All 29 treated patients in the current study tolerated the procedure, and none experienced unanticipated events. No patients needed to visit the emergency department or an intervention because of the treatment, and there were no observed ureter injuries.
 

Pain scores dropped significantly, procedure is ‘nearly painless’

Assessment of pain scores by each patient before and after treatment showed overall significant decreases in both mean and median scores, with 10 patients reporting decreased pain and two reporting increased pain.

When discomfort occurred during the procedure it was described by patients as either similar to a pinprick or as a referred sensation to pass urine and the stone. These effects occurred during 18 of 820 (2%) total propulsive bursts of ultrasound administered.

“It’s nearly painless, and you can do it while the patient is awake, and without sedation, which is critical,” said Dr. Hall in a statement from the University of Washington School of Medicine. He envisions eventually performing the procedure in a clinic or emergency department setting.

All three patients with a proximal stone and three patients with a distal stone who did not pass their stone after treatment underwent surgical stone removal.

The researchers acknowledge that a lack of a control group was a study limitation. They cite a historical, spontaneous stone passage rate of 54% included in a 2016 guideline from the American Urological Association and based on a meta-analysis of 27 studies with 1,205 total patients.

The study was funded by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which is interested in having a technology available to treat ureteral stones that may develop during prolonged space travel.

The study received no commercial funding. Four of the study’s 23 authors, including Dr. Sorensen, are consultants to and hold equity in SonoMotion, a company that has licensed the tested technology from the University of Washington for commercial development. The report did not identify a specific manufacturer of the ultrasound equipment used for treatment.

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

*Correction, 10/21/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the location of the stones. They were in the ureter.

Contrary to some prior studies, new research suggests that a healthy diet, including the Mediterranean diet, does not reduce dementia risk.

After adjusting for relevant demographic and other lifestyle measures, there was no association between adherence to healthy dietary advice or the Mediterranean diet on the future risk of dementia or amyloid-beta (Abeta) accumulation.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“While our study does not rule out a possible association between diet and dementia, we did not find a link in our study, which had a long follow-up period, included younger participants than some other studies and did not require people to remember what foods they had eaten regularly years before,” study investigator Isabelle Glans, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

No risk reduction

Several studies have investigated how dietary habits affect dementia risk, with inconsistent results.

The new findings are based on 28,025 adults (61% women; mean age, 58 years at baseline) who were free of dementia at baseline and were followed over a 20-year period as part of the Swedish Malmö Diet and Cancer Study. Dietary habits were assessed with a 7-day food diary, detailed food frequency questionnaire, and in-person interview.

During follow-up, 1,943 individuals (6.9%) developed dementia.

Compared with those who did not develop dementia, those who did develop dementia during follow-up were older and had a lower level of education and more cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities at baseline.

Individuals who adhered to conventional healthy dietary recommendations did not have a lower risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio comparing worst with best adherence, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.08), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.23) or vascular dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26).

Adherence to the modified Mediterranean diet also did not appear to lower the risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.19), or vascular dementia (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.55).

There was also no significant association between diet and Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, as measured by cerebrospinal fluid analysis of Abeta42 in a subgroup of 738 participants. Various sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.
 

Diet still matters

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that diet as a “singular factor may not have a strong enough effect on cognition, but is more likely to be considered as one factor embedded with various others, the sum of which may influence the course of cognitive function (diet, regular exercise, vascular risk factor control, avoiding cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, etc).

“Diet should not be forgotten and it still matters” but should be regarded as “one part of a multidomain intervention with respect to cognitive performance,” wrote Nils Peters, MD, with the University of Basel (Switzerland), and Benedetta Nacmias, PhD, with the University of Florence (Italy)).

“Key questions that remain include how to provide evidence for promoting the implications of dietary habits on cognition? Overall, dietary strategies will most likely be implicated either in order to reduce the increasing number of older subjects with dementia, or to extend healthy life expectancy, or both,” Dr. Peters and Dr. Nacmias said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Glans, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Nacmias disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to some prior studies, new research suggests that a healthy diet, including the Mediterranean diet, does not reduce dementia risk.

After adjusting for relevant demographic and other lifestyle measures, there was no association between adherence to healthy dietary advice or the Mediterranean diet on the future risk of dementia or amyloid-beta (Abeta) accumulation.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“While our study does not rule out a possible association between diet and dementia, we did not find a link in our study, which had a long follow-up period, included younger participants than some other studies and did not require people to remember what foods they had eaten regularly years before,” study investigator Isabelle Glans, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

No risk reduction

Several studies have investigated how dietary habits affect dementia risk, with inconsistent results.

The new findings are based on 28,025 adults (61% women; mean age, 58 years at baseline) who were free of dementia at baseline and were followed over a 20-year period as part of the Swedish Malmö Diet and Cancer Study. Dietary habits were assessed with a 7-day food diary, detailed food frequency questionnaire, and in-person interview.

During follow-up, 1,943 individuals (6.9%) developed dementia.

Compared with those who did not develop dementia, those who did develop dementia during follow-up were older and had a lower level of education and more cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities at baseline.

Individuals who adhered to conventional healthy dietary recommendations did not have a lower risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio comparing worst with best adherence, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.08), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.23) or vascular dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26).

Adherence to the modified Mediterranean diet also did not appear to lower the risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.19), or vascular dementia (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.55).

There was also no significant association between diet and Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, as measured by cerebrospinal fluid analysis of Abeta42 in a subgroup of 738 participants. Various sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.
 

Diet still matters

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that diet as a “singular factor may not have a strong enough effect on cognition, but is more likely to be considered as one factor embedded with various others, the sum of which may influence the course of cognitive function (diet, regular exercise, vascular risk factor control, avoiding cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, etc).

“Diet should not be forgotten and it still matters” but should be regarded as “one part of a multidomain intervention with respect to cognitive performance,” wrote Nils Peters, MD, with the University of Basel (Switzerland), and Benedetta Nacmias, PhD, with the University of Florence (Italy)).

“Key questions that remain include how to provide evidence for promoting the implications of dietary habits on cognition? Overall, dietary strategies will most likely be implicated either in order to reduce the increasing number of older subjects with dementia, or to extend healthy life expectancy, or both,” Dr. Peters and Dr. Nacmias said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Glans, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Nacmias disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to some prior studies, new research suggests that a healthy diet, including the Mediterranean diet, does not reduce dementia risk.

After adjusting for relevant demographic and other lifestyle measures, there was no association between adherence to healthy dietary advice or the Mediterranean diet on the future risk of dementia or amyloid-beta (Abeta) accumulation.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“While our study does not rule out a possible association between diet and dementia, we did not find a link in our study, which had a long follow-up period, included younger participants than some other studies and did not require people to remember what foods they had eaten regularly years before,” study investigator Isabelle Glans, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University, said in a news release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

No risk reduction

Several studies have investigated how dietary habits affect dementia risk, with inconsistent results.

The new findings are based on 28,025 adults (61% women; mean age, 58 years at baseline) who were free of dementia at baseline and were followed over a 20-year period as part of the Swedish Malmö Diet and Cancer Study. Dietary habits were assessed with a 7-day food diary, detailed food frequency questionnaire, and in-person interview.

During follow-up, 1,943 individuals (6.9%) developed dementia.

Compared with those who did not develop dementia, those who did develop dementia during follow-up were older and had a lower level of education and more cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities at baseline.

Individuals who adhered to conventional healthy dietary recommendations did not have a lower risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio comparing worst with best adherence, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.08), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.23) or vascular dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.26).

Adherence to the modified Mediterranean diet also did not appear to lower the risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68-1.19), or vascular dementia (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.65-1.55).

There was also no significant association between diet and Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, as measured by cerebrospinal fluid analysis of Abeta42 in a subgroup of 738 participants. Various sensitivity analyses yielded similar results.
 

Diet still matters

The authors of an accompanying editorial noted that diet as a “singular factor may not have a strong enough effect on cognition, but is more likely to be considered as one factor embedded with various others, the sum of which may influence the course of cognitive function (diet, regular exercise, vascular risk factor control, avoiding cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, etc).

“Diet should not be forgotten and it still matters” but should be regarded as “one part of a multidomain intervention with respect to cognitive performance,” wrote Nils Peters, MD, with the University of Basel (Switzerland), and Benedetta Nacmias, PhD, with the University of Florence (Italy)).

“Key questions that remain include how to provide evidence for promoting the implications of dietary habits on cognition? Overall, dietary strategies will most likely be implicated either in order to reduce the increasing number of older subjects with dementia, or to extend healthy life expectancy, or both,” Dr. Peters and Dr. Nacmias said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Glans, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Nacmias disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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

Do doctors, who typically earn a high salary, focus on living in the moment or saving for the future, or a financially healthy combination of both? In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.

Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.

Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.

For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.

So just how do physicians stack up financially?
 

Habits of physician super savers

Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.

For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.

When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.

When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.

Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.

Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
 

Barriers to wealth

When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.

“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.

When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).

“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
 

What’s your financial grade?

Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.

More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.

“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.

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