Cardiology

A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.

The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.

The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
 

The specifics

Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.

ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.

The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.

Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.

“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote

The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.

A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.

The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.

The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
 

The specifics

Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.

ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.

The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.

Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.

“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote

The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.

A new analysis of cardiovascular adverse drug reactions for non–small cell lung cancer (NCSLC)–targeted therapies finds that ALK and ROS1 inhibitors are associated with higher odds of conduction disease and QT prolongation than BRAF and EGFR inhibitors.

The findings are especially important because cardiovascular disease is known to be associated with NSCLC. Even before the start of therapy, 14%-22% of patients with stage I-IV NSCLC have heart failure and 26%-31% of patients have arrhythmias. No other study to date has described cardiovascular effects to this extent as a result of treatment.

The findings were published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

Led by Joel W. Neal, MD, PhD, a medical oncologist at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care, researchers evaluated the association between NSCLC-targeted agents with arrhythmia and heart failure. Their findings are based on analysis of data from the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database VigiBase. They found that of 98,765 adverse reactions, 61,383 occurred in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors, 15,540 were associated with ALK inhibitors, and 21,842 were associated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Arrhythmias occurred in 1,783 patients and 1,146 patients had heart failure.
 

The specifics

Strong associations with conduction disease and QT prolongation were found for ALK and ROS1 inhibitors, especially crizotinib. Of QT prolongation cases, 38.5% of patients on ceritinib and 18.4% of patients on crizotinib also had conduction disease and 7.9% of alectinib-associated conduction disease cases also had prolongation.

BRAF and MEK inhibitors had stronger associations with heart failure, while osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was strongly associated with QT prolongation, supraventricular tachycardia, and heart failure.

ALK inhibitors were found to be 13 times more likely to lead to conduction disease and five times more likely to lead to lead to long QT syndrome as compared to all NSCLC-targeted therapies together. ALK inhibitor crizotinib had significantly higher odds of conduction disease, compared with all other targeted therapies, but of all ALK inhibitors, ceritinib and lorlatinib had the lowest odds of conduction disease. Crizotinib was 1.9 times more likely to lead to QT prolongation than other ALK inhibitors.

The EGFR inhibitor osimertinib was associated with 49 times more like to lead to long QT syndrome than other EGFR inhibitors and 6 times more likely as compared with all other targeted therapies. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib was twice as likely than other EGFR inhibitors to lead to conduction disease. The third-generation EGFR inhibitor osimertinib had approximately two times higher odds of supraventricular tachycardia than other EGFR inhibitors.

Osimertinib was associated with 6.8 times higher chances of heart failure, compared with other EGFR inhibitors, and 3.6 times more than other targeted therapies. Dabrafenib and trametinib were associated with two to three times higher odds of heart failure as compared with other targeted therapies.

“There is a need for an understanding of the mechanisms underlying these toxicities and for additional studies to establish standardized guidelines for monitoring, particularly for osimertinib, crizotinib, and alectinib,” the authors wrote

The authors disclosed a number of paid advisory roles with various pharmaceutical companies.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.

Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.

Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.

The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.

Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.

Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.

Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.

The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.

Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.

Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.

Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.

The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.

Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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

Interrogating the cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) after death can yield important information about critical device malfunction, premortem abnormalities, and the mechanism and timing of death, a new study suggests.

Postmortem CIED interrogation is “richly informative” in assisting both cardiac and forensic investigations and “should be considered for select patients with CIEDs undergoing autopsy,” say Elizabeth Paratz, MBBS, department of cardiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Prahran, Australia, and colleagues.

Their study results were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 

Cause of death revealed in half of cases

They reviewed CIED interrogations in 260 deceased individuals undergoing medicolegal investigation of sudden death (162 patients) or unexplained death (98 patients) by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine between 2005 and 2020.

Roughly two-thirds were male (68.8%) and their median age was 72.8 years; 202 patients had pacemakers, 56 had defibrillators, and 2 had loop recorders. The cause of death was cardiac in 79.6% of cases.

Postmortem CIED interrogation was successful in 98.5% cases and directly informed cause of death in 131 cases (50.4%), with fatal ventricular arrhythmias identified in 121 patients.

CIED interrogation assisted in determining the cause of death in 63.6% of cases of sudden death and 28.6% of nonsudden death cases.

In 20 cases (7.7%), CIED interrogation uncovered potential device malfunction. Issues included failure to appropriately treat ventricular arrhythmias in 13 cases; lead issues in 3 cases, including 2 cases resulting in failure to treat ventricular arrhythmias; as well as battery depletion in 6 cases.

In 72 patients (27.7%), the device recorded abnormalities in the 30 days before death. These abnormalities included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in 26 cases, rapid atrial fibrillation in 17, elective replacement indicator or end-of-life status in 22, intrathoracic impedance alarms or lead issues in 3 each, and therapy delivered in 1 instance.

“In several cases, the absence of an arrhythmia carried medicolegal implications: For example, in eight fatal motor vehicle accident cases, only one patient had a ventricular arrhythmia documented on their CIED,” Dr. Paratz and colleagues report.

And in six cases in which the patient was found dead after a prolonged period, CIED interrogation determined time of death. And in one case, CIED interrogation was the primary means of identifying the patient.

Still, postmortem CIED interrogation remains uncommon, the study team notes.

They point to a 2007 survey of Chicago morticians that found roughly 370 CIEDs were explanted per year prior to cremation, but only 4% of morticians had ever returned a CIED to the manufacturer for analysis.

“Encouraging postmortem interrogation of CIEDs may assist in postmarketing surveillance for critical faults, as well as in providing an electrophysiological appraisal of terminal rhythms and device responses in a variety of physiological scenarios,” the researchers say.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Paratz is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council/National Heart Foundation cofunded Postgraduate Scholarship, Royal Australasian College of Physicians JJ Billings Scholarship, and PSA Insurance Cardiovascular Scholarship. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Interrogating the cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) after death can yield important information about critical device malfunction, premortem abnormalities, and the mechanism and timing of death, a new study suggests.

Postmortem CIED interrogation is “richly informative” in assisting both cardiac and forensic investigations and “should be considered for select patients with CIEDs undergoing autopsy,” say Elizabeth Paratz, MBBS, department of cardiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Prahran, Australia, and colleagues.

Their study results were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 

Cause of death revealed in half of cases

They reviewed CIED interrogations in 260 deceased individuals undergoing medicolegal investigation of sudden death (162 patients) or unexplained death (98 patients) by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine between 2005 and 2020.

Roughly two-thirds were male (68.8%) and their median age was 72.8 years; 202 patients had pacemakers, 56 had defibrillators, and 2 had loop recorders. The cause of death was cardiac in 79.6% of cases.

Postmortem CIED interrogation was successful in 98.5% cases and directly informed cause of death in 131 cases (50.4%), with fatal ventricular arrhythmias identified in 121 patients.

CIED interrogation assisted in determining the cause of death in 63.6% of cases of sudden death and 28.6% of nonsudden death cases.

In 20 cases (7.7%), CIED interrogation uncovered potential device malfunction. Issues included failure to appropriately treat ventricular arrhythmias in 13 cases; lead issues in 3 cases, including 2 cases resulting in failure to treat ventricular arrhythmias; as well as battery depletion in 6 cases.

In 72 patients (27.7%), the device recorded abnormalities in the 30 days before death. These abnormalities included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in 26 cases, rapid atrial fibrillation in 17, elective replacement indicator or end-of-life status in 22, intrathoracic impedance alarms or lead issues in 3 each, and therapy delivered in 1 instance.

“In several cases, the absence of an arrhythmia carried medicolegal implications: For example, in eight fatal motor vehicle accident cases, only one patient had a ventricular arrhythmia documented on their CIED,” Dr. Paratz and colleagues report.

And in six cases in which the patient was found dead after a prolonged period, CIED interrogation determined time of death. And in one case, CIED interrogation was the primary means of identifying the patient.

Still, postmortem CIED interrogation remains uncommon, the study team notes.

They point to a 2007 survey of Chicago morticians that found roughly 370 CIEDs were explanted per year prior to cremation, but only 4% of morticians had ever returned a CIED to the manufacturer for analysis.

“Encouraging postmortem interrogation of CIEDs may assist in postmarketing surveillance for critical faults, as well as in providing an electrophysiological appraisal of terminal rhythms and device responses in a variety of physiological scenarios,” the researchers say.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Paratz is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council/National Heart Foundation cofunded Postgraduate Scholarship, Royal Australasian College of Physicians JJ Billings Scholarship, and PSA Insurance Cardiovascular Scholarship. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Interrogating the cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) after death can yield important information about critical device malfunction, premortem abnormalities, and the mechanism and timing of death, a new study suggests.

Postmortem CIED interrogation is “richly informative” in assisting both cardiac and forensic investigations and “should be considered for select patients with CIEDs undergoing autopsy,” say Elizabeth Paratz, MBBS, department of cardiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Prahran, Australia, and colleagues.

Their study results were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 

Cause of death revealed in half of cases

They reviewed CIED interrogations in 260 deceased individuals undergoing medicolegal investigation of sudden death (162 patients) or unexplained death (98 patients) by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine between 2005 and 2020.

Roughly two-thirds were male (68.8%) and their median age was 72.8 years; 202 patients had pacemakers, 56 had defibrillators, and 2 had loop recorders. The cause of death was cardiac in 79.6% of cases.

Postmortem CIED interrogation was successful in 98.5% cases and directly informed cause of death in 131 cases (50.4%), with fatal ventricular arrhythmias identified in 121 patients.

CIED interrogation assisted in determining the cause of death in 63.6% of cases of sudden death and 28.6% of nonsudden death cases.

In 20 cases (7.7%), CIED interrogation uncovered potential device malfunction. Issues included failure to appropriately treat ventricular arrhythmias in 13 cases; lead issues in 3 cases, including 2 cases resulting in failure to treat ventricular arrhythmias; as well as battery depletion in 6 cases.

In 72 patients (27.7%), the device recorded abnormalities in the 30 days before death. These abnormalities included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in 26 cases, rapid atrial fibrillation in 17, elective replacement indicator or end-of-life status in 22, intrathoracic impedance alarms or lead issues in 3 each, and therapy delivered in 1 instance.

“In several cases, the absence of an arrhythmia carried medicolegal implications: For example, in eight fatal motor vehicle accident cases, only one patient had a ventricular arrhythmia documented on their CIED,” Dr. Paratz and colleagues report.

And in six cases in which the patient was found dead after a prolonged period, CIED interrogation determined time of death. And in one case, CIED interrogation was the primary means of identifying the patient.

Still, postmortem CIED interrogation remains uncommon, the study team notes.

They point to a 2007 survey of Chicago morticians that found roughly 370 CIEDs were explanted per year prior to cremation, but only 4% of morticians had ever returned a CIED to the manufacturer for analysis.

“Encouraging postmortem interrogation of CIEDs may assist in postmarketing surveillance for critical faults, as well as in providing an electrophysiological appraisal of terminal rhythms and device responses in a variety of physiological scenarios,” the researchers say.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Paratz is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council/National Heart Foundation cofunded Postgraduate Scholarship, Royal Australasian College of Physicians JJ Billings Scholarship, and PSA Insurance Cardiovascular Scholarship. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

When holiday shoppers recently went to their local liquor stores in search of some liquid spirit, many were instead greeted by the sight of increasingly barren shelves.

ThinkStock

Although partly a result of global supply chain issues, this was also yet more evidence of the rising demand for alcohol among adults during these difficult COVID years. It’s a trend that has led to concerns of an echo pandemic of alcohol-related morbidity, which has begun to play out in the form of rising rates of gastrointestinal and liver disease, hospital admissions for alcoholic hepatitis, and alcohol-related incidents of domestic violence.

Those who imbibe alcohol in low to moderate levels may not see themselves reflected in such stories of drinking’s hefty tolls. They’re instead following established health guidance that a little bit of alcohol now and then actually has robust health benefits. Yet the past few of years have seen a notable fraying of this idea, as emerging data calls into question whether alcohol in moderation should really continue to be just what the doctor ordered. 
 

Behind the curve: Alcohol’s diminishing cardioprotective value

Perhaps the most resonant argument for the benefits of light to moderate alcohol consumption – usually defined as between one to two drinks a day – has been its proposed cardioprotective value. In this way, alcohol differs from tobacco, which is unsafe at any level. Alcohol’s proposed cardioprotective effects are often represented as a J-shaped curve, with moderate drinking occupying the sweet spot between teetotaling and heavy/binge drinking when it comes to reduced mortality.

In reality, this association is more likely “a statistical artifact” largely derived from low-quality observational studies, according to Christopher Labos, MD, CM, MSc, an epidemiologist and cardiologist at the Queen Elizabeth Health Complex in Montreal.

“When you look at studies that correct for things like reverse causation, or the fact that some people who drink zero alcohol are former drinkers who used to drink alcohol, then you realize that the protective benefit of alcohol is either minimal or nonexistent and that alcohol does more harm than good to our society,” said Dr. Labos, who detailed the reasons underpinning alcohol’s unearned cardioprotective reputation in a 2020 Medscape commentary.

This statistical limitation was on display in July 2021 when BMC Medicine published results from meta-analyses suggesting that current drinkers need not stop consuming small amounts of alcohol for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study’s own investigators noted that it likely overestimated the reduced risk of CVD by including former heavy drinkers as nondrinkers.

Even if the J-shaped curve exists, its simplicity is deceiving. CVD risk increases alongside alcohol consumption owning to a complicated array of genetic and lifestyle factors. The curve also presents something of a catch-22. If you like alcohol enough to drink it every day, staying at the nadir of the curve where you’d gain the most benefits may prove challenging.

Another factor dimming alcohol’s cardioprotective reputation came via recent data that atrial fibrillation episodes can be triggered by acute alcohol use. A randomized, controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that abstinence reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation.

“If we can replicate that, I think we’ll find that reducing alcohol consumption might be a very effective way to prevent and treat atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Labos.

However, J-curve proponents will note the publication of study data from the UK Biobank indicating that low levels of alcohol consumption confers the greatest reduction in atrial fibrillation risk.
 

An overlooked carcinogen no longer  

Surveys indicate that less than half of Americans realize alcohol increases cancer risk. That might have changed just a bit this year. In early 2021, an epidemiological analysis estimated that alcohol contributed to 4.8% of cancer cases and 3.2% of cancer deaths in the United States. Then the Lancet Oncology published the results of a high-profile, population-based study on the global burden of cancer as a result of alcoho. Although the main takeaway message was that 4% of new cancer cases worldwide in 2020 were attributable to alcohol, it was also noteworthy that moderate drinking accounted for 103,100 out of 741,300 of these projected annual cases.

“The risk of cancer increases even with low or moderate levels of drinking,” said the study’s lead author Harriet Rumgay, BSc, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. “Drinking less means you’ll have a lower risk of cancer than if you drink heavily, but there is no safe limit of alcohol consumption.”

The study linked alcohol consumption with an increased risk of at least seven different cancer types, including cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, liver, and breast.

Although in North America men represented about two-thirds of the burden of cancer caused by alcohol, Ms. Rumgay added that “low and moderate levels of drinking [one or two alcoholic drinks per day] contributed relatively more cancer cases among women than among men.”

Yet more negative news for moderate alcohol drinkers arrived in August 2021, when a team of South Korean researchers published data in JAMA Network Open showing that, when it came to the risk of developing gastrointestinal cancers, even binge drinking may be preferable to continuous but moderate consumption.

Perhaps the changing perception of alcohol’s carcinogenic potential is best summed up by the American Cancer Society, who in updating its guidelines in 2020 after an 8-year interim offered this succinct piece of advice: “It is best not to drink alcohol.” 
 

Neurotoxic implications

There has similarly been a reconsideration of the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on brain health.

A recent report of multimodal MRI brain and cognitive testing data from over 25,000 participants in the UK Biobank study indicate that alcohol may have no safe dosage . Even moderate consumption reduced gray matter volume and functional connectivity, negative associations that were increased in those with higher blood pressure and body mass index.

Speaking with this news organization in May 2021, an investigator said: “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor,” noting that the changes have been linked to decreased memory and dementia.

Louise Mewton, PhD, from the Center for Healthy Brain Aging at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said that these results provide an interesting comparison with others into the association between alcohol and dementia.

“A recent study of over 1 million dementia cases in France indicated that problematic alcohol use (alcohol use disorders) were one of the strongest risk factors for dementia – even more so than things like high blood pressure and diabetes,” Dr. Mewton said in an interview. In comparison, “the most-recent reviews indicate that 4 drinks/week is associated with the lowest risk for dementia – so we’re talking about very low levels of alcohol use in terms of maintaining brain health.

“Understanding why very small amounts of alcohol appear to be protective in terms of dementia but damaging when we look at brain scans is something that would be really interesting to unpack.”

Dr. Mewton and colleagues recently published data suggesting that there are three periods when the brain might be particularly susceptible to alcohol’s neurotoxic effects: gestation (from conception to birth), later adolescence (15-19 years), and older adulthood (over 65 years). Directing behavioral interventions to patients in these stages may therefore be beneficial.

And there’s no time too soon to promote abstinence among those with alcohol use disorder, as brain damage is shown to still occur even in the immediate period after people cease drinking.

Although in one more argument for the J-shaped curve’s relevance, data from the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank recently indicated that moderate alcohol use, unlike low and heavy use, lowered both stress-related neurobiological activity and major adverse cardiovascular events.
 

Getting patients to reconsider alcohol’s ‘benefits’

These new findings mean physicians will find themselves imparting a more nuanced message about the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption than in prior years. To aid those efforts, Ms. Rumgay advised clinicians to consult a special issue of the journal Nutrients that features review articles of alcohol›s impact on various health outcomes.

Ms. Rumgay also supports broader policy changes.

“There is some evidence that adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels, similar to those used on cigarette packages, might deter people from purchasing alcohol products and increase awareness of the causal link with cancer,” she said. “But the most effective ways of reducing alcohol use in the population are through increasing the price of alcohol through higher taxes, limiting purchasing availability, and reducing marketing of alcohol brands to the public.”

Dr. Mewton recommended various interventions for patients who still find it difficult to curtail their drinking.

“For less severe, problematic use, things like cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational therapy are very effective in reducing alcohol consumption,” she said in an interview.

For all the discussion about how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated problematic drinking, it has also provided an opportunity for getting patients to reexamine their relationship to alcohol. And as Dr. Labos noted, emerging data on alcohol’s negative effects probably won’t be considered earth-shattering to most patients.

“Deep down, I think most people know that alcohol is not healthy, but it is part of our social culture and so we find ways to justify our own behavior,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Labos suggested that clinicians reframe alcohol in their patients’ minds for what it really is – “an indulgence that we shouldn’t have too much of very often.

“Just like junk food, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy small amounts occasionally, but we have to stop presenting that it is good for us, because it isn’t.”

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

When holiday shoppers recently went to their local liquor stores in search of some liquid spirit, many were instead greeted by the sight of increasingly barren shelves.

ThinkStock

Although partly a result of global supply chain issues, this was also yet more evidence of the rising demand for alcohol among adults during these difficult COVID years. It’s a trend that has led to concerns of an echo pandemic of alcohol-related morbidity, which has begun to play out in the form of rising rates of gastrointestinal and liver disease, hospital admissions for alcoholic hepatitis, and alcohol-related incidents of domestic violence.

Those who imbibe alcohol in low to moderate levels may not see themselves reflected in such stories of drinking’s hefty tolls. They’re instead following established health guidance that a little bit of alcohol now and then actually has robust health benefits. Yet the past few of years have seen a notable fraying of this idea, as emerging data calls into question whether alcohol in moderation should really continue to be just what the doctor ordered. 
 

Behind the curve: Alcohol’s diminishing cardioprotective value

Perhaps the most resonant argument for the benefits of light to moderate alcohol consumption – usually defined as between one to two drinks a day – has been its proposed cardioprotective value. In this way, alcohol differs from tobacco, which is unsafe at any level. Alcohol’s proposed cardioprotective effects are often represented as a J-shaped curve, with moderate drinking occupying the sweet spot between teetotaling and heavy/binge drinking when it comes to reduced mortality.

In reality, this association is more likely “a statistical artifact” largely derived from low-quality observational studies, according to Christopher Labos, MD, CM, MSc, an epidemiologist and cardiologist at the Queen Elizabeth Health Complex in Montreal.

“When you look at studies that correct for things like reverse causation, or the fact that some people who drink zero alcohol are former drinkers who used to drink alcohol, then you realize that the protective benefit of alcohol is either minimal or nonexistent and that alcohol does more harm than good to our society,” said Dr. Labos, who detailed the reasons underpinning alcohol’s unearned cardioprotective reputation in a 2020 Medscape commentary.

This statistical limitation was on display in July 2021 when BMC Medicine published results from meta-analyses suggesting that current drinkers need not stop consuming small amounts of alcohol for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study’s own investigators noted that it likely overestimated the reduced risk of CVD by including former heavy drinkers as nondrinkers.

Even if the J-shaped curve exists, its simplicity is deceiving. CVD risk increases alongside alcohol consumption owning to a complicated array of genetic and lifestyle factors. The curve also presents something of a catch-22. If you like alcohol enough to drink it every day, staying at the nadir of the curve where you’d gain the most benefits may prove challenging.

Another factor dimming alcohol’s cardioprotective reputation came via recent data that atrial fibrillation episodes can be triggered by acute alcohol use. A randomized, controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that abstinence reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation.

“If we can replicate that, I think we’ll find that reducing alcohol consumption might be a very effective way to prevent and treat atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Labos.

However, J-curve proponents will note the publication of study data from the UK Biobank indicating that low levels of alcohol consumption confers the greatest reduction in atrial fibrillation risk.
 

An overlooked carcinogen no longer  

Surveys indicate that less than half of Americans realize alcohol increases cancer risk. That might have changed just a bit this year. In early 2021, an epidemiological analysis estimated that alcohol contributed to 4.8% of cancer cases and 3.2% of cancer deaths in the United States. Then the Lancet Oncology published the results of a high-profile, population-based study on the global burden of cancer as a result of alcoho. Although the main takeaway message was that 4% of new cancer cases worldwide in 2020 were attributable to alcohol, it was also noteworthy that moderate drinking accounted for 103,100 out of 741,300 of these projected annual cases.

“The risk of cancer increases even with low or moderate levels of drinking,” said the study’s lead author Harriet Rumgay, BSc, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. “Drinking less means you’ll have a lower risk of cancer than if you drink heavily, but there is no safe limit of alcohol consumption.”

The study linked alcohol consumption with an increased risk of at least seven different cancer types, including cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, liver, and breast.

Although in North America men represented about two-thirds of the burden of cancer caused by alcohol, Ms. Rumgay added that “low and moderate levels of drinking [one or two alcoholic drinks per day] contributed relatively more cancer cases among women than among men.”

Yet more negative news for moderate alcohol drinkers arrived in August 2021, when a team of South Korean researchers published data in JAMA Network Open showing that, when it came to the risk of developing gastrointestinal cancers, even binge drinking may be preferable to continuous but moderate consumption.

Perhaps the changing perception of alcohol’s carcinogenic potential is best summed up by the American Cancer Society, who in updating its guidelines in 2020 after an 8-year interim offered this succinct piece of advice: “It is best not to drink alcohol.” 
 

Neurotoxic implications

There has similarly been a reconsideration of the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on brain health.

A recent report of multimodal MRI brain and cognitive testing data from over 25,000 participants in the UK Biobank study indicate that alcohol may have no safe dosage . Even moderate consumption reduced gray matter volume and functional connectivity, negative associations that were increased in those with higher blood pressure and body mass index.

Speaking with this news organization in May 2021, an investigator said: “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor,” noting that the changes have been linked to decreased memory and dementia.

Louise Mewton, PhD, from the Center for Healthy Brain Aging at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said that these results provide an interesting comparison with others into the association between alcohol and dementia.

“A recent study of over 1 million dementia cases in France indicated that problematic alcohol use (alcohol use disorders) were one of the strongest risk factors for dementia – even more so than things like high blood pressure and diabetes,” Dr. Mewton said in an interview. In comparison, “the most-recent reviews indicate that 4 drinks/week is associated with the lowest risk for dementia – so we’re talking about very low levels of alcohol use in terms of maintaining brain health.

“Understanding why very small amounts of alcohol appear to be protective in terms of dementia but damaging when we look at brain scans is something that would be really interesting to unpack.”

Dr. Mewton and colleagues recently published data suggesting that there are three periods when the brain might be particularly susceptible to alcohol’s neurotoxic effects: gestation (from conception to birth), later adolescence (15-19 years), and older adulthood (over 65 years). Directing behavioral interventions to patients in these stages may therefore be beneficial.

And there’s no time too soon to promote abstinence among those with alcohol use disorder, as brain damage is shown to still occur even in the immediate period after people cease drinking.

Although in one more argument for the J-shaped curve’s relevance, data from the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank recently indicated that moderate alcohol use, unlike low and heavy use, lowered both stress-related neurobiological activity and major adverse cardiovascular events.
 

Getting patients to reconsider alcohol’s ‘benefits’

These new findings mean physicians will find themselves imparting a more nuanced message about the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption than in prior years. To aid those efforts, Ms. Rumgay advised clinicians to consult a special issue of the journal Nutrients that features review articles of alcohol›s impact on various health outcomes.

Ms. Rumgay also supports broader policy changes.

“There is some evidence that adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels, similar to those used on cigarette packages, might deter people from purchasing alcohol products and increase awareness of the causal link with cancer,” she said. “But the most effective ways of reducing alcohol use in the population are through increasing the price of alcohol through higher taxes, limiting purchasing availability, and reducing marketing of alcohol brands to the public.”

Dr. Mewton recommended various interventions for patients who still find it difficult to curtail their drinking.

“For less severe, problematic use, things like cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational therapy are very effective in reducing alcohol consumption,” she said in an interview.

For all the discussion about how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated problematic drinking, it has also provided an opportunity for getting patients to reexamine their relationship to alcohol. And as Dr. Labos noted, emerging data on alcohol’s negative effects probably won’t be considered earth-shattering to most patients.

“Deep down, I think most people know that alcohol is not healthy, but it is part of our social culture and so we find ways to justify our own behavior,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Labos suggested that clinicians reframe alcohol in their patients’ minds for what it really is – “an indulgence that we shouldn’t have too much of very often.

“Just like junk food, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy small amounts occasionally, but we have to stop presenting that it is good for us, because it isn’t.”

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

When holiday shoppers recently went to their local liquor stores in search of some liquid spirit, many were instead greeted by the sight of increasingly barren shelves.

ThinkStock

Although partly a result of global supply chain issues, this was also yet more evidence of the rising demand for alcohol among adults during these difficult COVID years. It’s a trend that has led to concerns of an echo pandemic of alcohol-related morbidity, which has begun to play out in the form of rising rates of gastrointestinal and liver disease, hospital admissions for alcoholic hepatitis, and alcohol-related incidents of domestic violence.

Those who imbibe alcohol in low to moderate levels may not see themselves reflected in such stories of drinking’s hefty tolls. They’re instead following established health guidance that a little bit of alcohol now and then actually has robust health benefits. Yet the past few of years have seen a notable fraying of this idea, as emerging data calls into question whether alcohol in moderation should really continue to be just what the doctor ordered. 
 

Behind the curve: Alcohol’s diminishing cardioprotective value

Perhaps the most resonant argument for the benefits of light to moderate alcohol consumption – usually defined as between one to two drinks a day – has been its proposed cardioprotective value. In this way, alcohol differs from tobacco, which is unsafe at any level. Alcohol’s proposed cardioprotective effects are often represented as a J-shaped curve, with moderate drinking occupying the sweet spot between teetotaling and heavy/binge drinking when it comes to reduced mortality.

In reality, this association is more likely “a statistical artifact” largely derived from low-quality observational studies, according to Christopher Labos, MD, CM, MSc, an epidemiologist and cardiologist at the Queen Elizabeth Health Complex in Montreal.

“When you look at studies that correct for things like reverse causation, or the fact that some people who drink zero alcohol are former drinkers who used to drink alcohol, then you realize that the protective benefit of alcohol is either minimal or nonexistent and that alcohol does more harm than good to our society,” said Dr. Labos, who detailed the reasons underpinning alcohol’s unearned cardioprotective reputation in a 2020 Medscape commentary.

This statistical limitation was on display in July 2021 when BMC Medicine published results from meta-analyses suggesting that current drinkers need not stop consuming small amounts of alcohol for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The study’s own investigators noted that it likely overestimated the reduced risk of CVD by including former heavy drinkers as nondrinkers.

Even if the J-shaped curve exists, its simplicity is deceiving. CVD risk increases alongside alcohol consumption owning to a complicated array of genetic and lifestyle factors. The curve also presents something of a catch-22. If you like alcohol enough to drink it every day, staying at the nadir of the curve where you’d gain the most benefits may prove challenging.

Another factor dimming alcohol’s cardioprotective reputation came via recent data that atrial fibrillation episodes can be triggered by acute alcohol use. A randomized, controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that abstinence reduced arrhythmia recurrences in regular drinkers with atrial fibrillation.

“If we can replicate that, I think we’ll find that reducing alcohol consumption might be a very effective way to prevent and treat atrial fibrillation,” said Dr. Labos.

However, J-curve proponents will note the publication of study data from the UK Biobank indicating that low levels of alcohol consumption confers the greatest reduction in atrial fibrillation risk.
 

An overlooked carcinogen no longer  

Surveys indicate that less than half of Americans realize alcohol increases cancer risk. That might have changed just a bit this year. In early 2021, an epidemiological analysis estimated that alcohol contributed to 4.8% of cancer cases and 3.2% of cancer deaths in the United States. Then the Lancet Oncology published the results of a high-profile, population-based study on the global burden of cancer as a result of alcoho. Although the main takeaway message was that 4% of new cancer cases worldwide in 2020 were attributable to alcohol, it was also noteworthy that moderate drinking accounted for 103,100 out of 741,300 of these projected annual cases.

“The risk of cancer increases even with low or moderate levels of drinking,” said the study’s lead author Harriet Rumgay, BSc, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. “Drinking less means you’ll have a lower risk of cancer than if you drink heavily, but there is no safe limit of alcohol consumption.”

The study linked alcohol consumption with an increased risk of at least seven different cancer types, including cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, colon, rectum, liver, and breast.

Although in North America men represented about two-thirds of the burden of cancer caused by alcohol, Ms. Rumgay added that “low and moderate levels of drinking [one or two alcoholic drinks per day] contributed relatively more cancer cases among women than among men.”

Yet more negative news for moderate alcohol drinkers arrived in August 2021, when a team of South Korean researchers published data in JAMA Network Open showing that, when it came to the risk of developing gastrointestinal cancers, even binge drinking may be preferable to continuous but moderate consumption.

Perhaps the changing perception of alcohol’s carcinogenic potential is best summed up by the American Cancer Society, who in updating its guidelines in 2020 after an 8-year interim offered this succinct piece of advice: “It is best not to drink alcohol.” 
 

Neurotoxic implications

There has similarly been a reconsideration of the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on brain health.

A recent report of multimodal MRI brain and cognitive testing data from over 25,000 participants in the UK Biobank study indicate that alcohol may have no safe dosage . Even moderate consumption reduced gray matter volume and functional connectivity, negative associations that were increased in those with higher blood pressure and body mass index.

Speaking with this news organization in May 2021, an investigator said: “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor,” noting that the changes have been linked to decreased memory and dementia.

Louise Mewton, PhD, from the Center for Healthy Brain Aging at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, said that these results provide an interesting comparison with others into the association between alcohol and dementia.

“A recent study of over 1 million dementia cases in France indicated that problematic alcohol use (alcohol use disorders) were one of the strongest risk factors for dementia – even more so than things like high blood pressure and diabetes,” Dr. Mewton said in an interview. In comparison, “the most-recent reviews indicate that 4 drinks/week is associated with the lowest risk for dementia – so we’re talking about very low levels of alcohol use in terms of maintaining brain health.

“Understanding why very small amounts of alcohol appear to be protective in terms of dementia but damaging when we look at brain scans is something that would be really interesting to unpack.”

Dr. Mewton and colleagues recently published data suggesting that there are three periods when the brain might be particularly susceptible to alcohol’s neurotoxic effects: gestation (from conception to birth), later adolescence (15-19 years), and older adulthood (over 65 years). Directing behavioral interventions to patients in these stages may therefore be beneficial.

And there’s no time too soon to promote abstinence among those with alcohol use disorder, as brain damage is shown to still occur even in the immediate period after people cease drinking.

Although in one more argument for the J-shaped curve’s relevance, data from the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank recently indicated that moderate alcohol use, unlike low and heavy use, lowered both stress-related neurobiological activity and major adverse cardiovascular events.
 

Getting patients to reconsider alcohol’s ‘benefits’

These new findings mean physicians will find themselves imparting a more nuanced message about the health impacts of moderate alcohol consumption than in prior years. To aid those efforts, Ms. Rumgay advised clinicians to consult a special issue of the journal Nutrients that features review articles of alcohol›s impact on various health outcomes.

Ms. Rumgay also supports broader policy changes.

“There is some evidence that adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels, similar to those used on cigarette packages, might deter people from purchasing alcohol products and increase awareness of the causal link with cancer,” she said. “But the most effective ways of reducing alcohol use in the population are through increasing the price of alcohol through higher taxes, limiting purchasing availability, and reducing marketing of alcohol brands to the public.”

Dr. Mewton recommended various interventions for patients who still find it difficult to curtail their drinking.

“For less severe, problematic use, things like cognitive-behavioral therapy and motivational therapy are very effective in reducing alcohol consumption,” she said in an interview.

For all the discussion about how the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated problematic drinking, it has also provided an opportunity for getting patients to reexamine their relationship to alcohol. And as Dr. Labos noted, emerging data on alcohol’s negative effects probably won’t be considered earth-shattering to most patients.

“Deep down, I think most people know that alcohol is not healthy, but it is part of our social culture and so we find ways to justify our own behavior,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Labos suggested that clinicians reframe alcohol in their patients’ minds for what it really is – “an indulgence that we shouldn’t have too much of very often.

“Just like junk food, that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy small amounts occasionally, but we have to stop presenting that it is good for us, because it isn’t.”

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

The amount of fat surrounding abdominal organs may help clinicians identify cardiovascular risk in young people with obesity, researchers have found.

Severely overweight children and young adults showed a subtle association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness independent of body mass index (BMI). The association was not present in those of healthy weight, possibly because their visceral fat stores are too small to have a detectable effect on cardiovascular health, according to the researchers, who reported their findings in the latest issue of Pediatric Obesity.

“Those kids with greater visceral fat had stiffer arteries, which can overtax and overstress the system and lead to unfortunate consequences in terms of cardiovascular health down the line,” senior author Joseph M. Kindler, PhD, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, told this news organization.

The data came from cross-sectional measurements in 605 youth (67% female, 56% non-Black) aged 10-23 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. The sample included 236 individuals of healthy weight, 224 with obesity, and 145 with type 2 diabetes.    

Visceral fat was assessed with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a widely used test of bone mineral density screening to assess fracture risk. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was used to gauge arterial stiffness, a subclinical sign of cardiovascular disease.

Visceral fat was associated with PWV in all three groups of study subjects (P < .05), the researchers found, whereas the amount of subcutaneous fat was linked to arterial stiffness in obese youth and those with obesity but not those whose weight was considered healthy.

The amount of fat was associated with an additional 1.6% of the variability in arterial stiffness in youth with obesity after accounting for BMI. Subcutaneous fat, meanwhile, did not appear to affect PWV, the researchers found. “In youth with healthy weight, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, BMI, and waist circumference were not significantly associated with PWV in any analyses,” they write.

The researchers cited a paucity of data on the relationship between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease in children with obesity. Although BMI is a reliable and readily available indicator of risk for disease, DXA “might give us a little more information,” Dr. Kindler, a nutritionist and bone biologist, said. As for clinical use to supplement BMI and waist circumference, he said, “maybe there’s room for visceral fat, but we do need a lot more science to back those decisions down the line.”

For example, what normal visceral fat accumulation during childhood looks like is unknown, he said.

Rigorous longitudinal studies are needed to establish cause and effect, but the new findings offer “a potential connection between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease risk in youth in a relatively large sample,” Wei Shen, MD, MPH, the associate director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center at Columbia University, New York, said.

Ideally, said Dr. Shen, who was not involved in the latest study, it would be “more credible to use the most accurate measure of visceral fat, the volumetric measurement of visceral fat using MRI” to establish a causal relationship with cardiovascular risk. However, MRI is more expensive and less accessible than DXA. To assess visceral fat in the clinic, “waist circumference may still be a good choice, as it is so convenient to use,” she added.

Dr. Kindler and his colleagues highlighted the need to examine the effect of excess visceral fat as well as intrahepatic fat on youth with type 2 diabetes, who experience cardiovascular complications independent of whether they are obese. In the new study, the positive association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness did not differ between youth with obesity and normal glucose control and those with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Funding came from the Endocrine Fellows Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Georgia Obesity Initiative. Dr. Kindler and Dr. Shen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The amount of fat surrounding abdominal organs may help clinicians identify cardiovascular risk in young people with obesity, researchers have found.

Severely overweight children and young adults showed a subtle association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness independent of body mass index (BMI). The association was not present in those of healthy weight, possibly because their visceral fat stores are too small to have a detectable effect on cardiovascular health, according to the researchers, who reported their findings in the latest issue of Pediatric Obesity.

“Those kids with greater visceral fat had stiffer arteries, which can overtax and overstress the system and lead to unfortunate consequences in terms of cardiovascular health down the line,” senior author Joseph M. Kindler, PhD, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, told this news organization.

The data came from cross-sectional measurements in 605 youth (67% female, 56% non-Black) aged 10-23 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. The sample included 236 individuals of healthy weight, 224 with obesity, and 145 with type 2 diabetes.    

Visceral fat was assessed with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a widely used test of bone mineral density screening to assess fracture risk. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was used to gauge arterial stiffness, a subclinical sign of cardiovascular disease.

Visceral fat was associated with PWV in all three groups of study subjects (P < .05), the researchers found, whereas the amount of subcutaneous fat was linked to arterial stiffness in obese youth and those with obesity but not those whose weight was considered healthy.

The amount of fat was associated with an additional 1.6% of the variability in arterial stiffness in youth with obesity after accounting for BMI. Subcutaneous fat, meanwhile, did not appear to affect PWV, the researchers found. “In youth with healthy weight, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, BMI, and waist circumference were not significantly associated with PWV in any analyses,” they write.

The researchers cited a paucity of data on the relationship between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease in children with obesity. Although BMI is a reliable and readily available indicator of risk for disease, DXA “might give us a little more information,” Dr. Kindler, a nutritionist and bone biologist, said. As for clinical use to supplement BMI and waist circumference, he said, “maybe there’s room for visceral fat, but we do need a lot more science to back those decisions down the line.”

For example, what normal visceral fat accumulation during childhood looks like is unknown, he said.

Rigorous longitudinal studies are needed to establish cause and effect, but the new findings offer “a potential connection between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease risk in youth in a relatively large sample,” Wei Shen, MD, MPH, the associate director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center at Columbia University, New York, said.

Ideally, said Dr. Shen, who was not involved in the latest study, it would be “more credible to use the most accurate measure of visceral fat, the volumetric measurement of visceral fat using MRI” to establish a causal relationship with cardiovascular risk. However, MRI is more expensive and less accessible than DXA. To assess visceral fat in the clinic, “waist circumference may still be a good choice, as it is so convenient to use,” she added.

Dr. Kindler and his colleagues highlighted the need to examine the effect of excess visceral fat as well as intrahepatic fat on youth with type 2 diabetes, who experience cardiovascular complications independent of whether they are obese. In the new study, the positive association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness did not differ between youth with obesity and normal glucose control and those with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Funding came from the Endocrine Fellows Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Georgia Obesity Initiative. Dr. Kindler and Dr. Shen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The amount of fat surrounding abdominal organs may help clinicians identify cardiovascular risk in young people with obesity, researchers have found.

Severely overweight children and young adults showed a subtle association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness independent of body mass index (BMI). The association was not present in those of healthy weight, possibly because their visceral fat stores are too small to have a detectable effect on cardiovascular health, according to the researchers, who reported their findings in the latest issue of Pediatric Obesity.

“Those kids with greater visceral fat had stiffer arteries, which can overtax and overstress the system and lead to unfortunate consequences in terms of cardiovascular health down the line,” senior author Joseph M. Kindler, PhD, an assistant professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, told this news organization.

The data came from cross-sectional measurements in 605 youth (67% female, 56% non-Black) aged 10-23 years at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. The sample included 236 individuals of healthy weight, 224 with obesity, and 145 with type 2 diabetes.    

Visceral fat was assessed with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a widely used test of bone mineral density screening to assess fracture risk. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) was used to gauge arterial stiffness, a subclinical sign of cardiovascular disease.

Visceral fat was associated with PWV in all three groups of study subjects (P < .05), the researchers found, whereas the amount of subcutaneous fat was linked to arterial stiffness in obese youth and those with obesity but not those whose weight was considered healthy.

The amount of fat was associated with an additional 1.6% of the variability in arterial stiffness in youth with obesity after accounting for BMI. Subcutaneous fat, meanwhile, did not appear to affect PWV, the researchers found. “In youth with healthy weight, visceral fat, subcutaneous fat, BMI, and waist circumference were not significantly associated with PWV in any analyses,” they write.

The researchers cited a paucity of data on the relationship between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease in children with obesity. Although BMI is a reliable and readily available indicator of risk for disease, DXA “might give us a little more information,” Dr. Kindler, a nutritionist and bone biologist, said. As for clinical use to supplement BMI and waist circumference, he said, “maybe there’s room for visceral fat, but we do need a lot more science to back those decisions down the line.”

For example, what normal visceral fat accumulation during childhood looks like is unknown, he said.

Rigorous longitudinal studies are needed to establish cause and effect, but the new findings offer “a potential connection between visceral fat and cardiovascular disease risk in youth in a relatively large sample,” Wei Shen, MD, MPH, the associate director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Nutrition Research Center at Columbia University, New York, said.

Ideally, said Dr. Shen, who was not involved in the latest study, it would be “more credible to use the most accurate measure of visceral fat, the volumetric measurement of visceral fat using MRI” to establish a causal relationship with cardiovascular risk. However, MRI is more expensive and less accessible than DXA. To assess visceral fat in the clinic, “waist circumference may still be a good choice, as it is so convenient to use,” she added.

Dr. Kindler and his colleagues highlighted the need to examine the effect of excess visceral fat as well as intrahepatic fat on youth with type 2 diabetes, who experience cardiovascular complications independent of whether they are obese. In the new study, the positive association between visceral fat and arterial stiffness did not differ between youth with obesity and normal glucose control and those with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Funding came from the Endocrine Fellows Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Georgia Obesity Initiative. Dr. Kindler and Dr. Shen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.

What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.

“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.

“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.

The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.

Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).

The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.

“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
 

Multivariate analysis determines risk

The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.

The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”

The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.

“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.

It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.

What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.

“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.

“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.

The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.

Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).

The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.

“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
 

Multivariate analysis determines risk

The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.

The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”

The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.

“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.

It has been well established that device closure has, on average, prevented stroke recurrence in people who’ve had patent foramen ovale–associated stroke, but a meta-analysis has drilled down into clinical trials to advance a potentially practice-changing principle: that, while device closure shows an overall benefit, not all patients derive a benefit and some may actually be harmed by the procedure.

What’s more, the researchers developed a scoring system that helps determine which patients are likely to benefit from device closure.

“What was unknown was how to treat individual patients because the decision to close the patent foramen ovale (PFO) is still preference sensitive because the risk of a recurrent stroke is low, and most of the strokes that recur are not terribly severe,” lead study author David M. Kent, MD, MS, said in an interview.

“On top of this,” he said, “it was still suspected that some of the PFOs, even in trials of well-selected patients, may not be causally related to stroke; the stroke may still have another occult cause, such as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or aortic arch atheroma.” Dr. Kent is a professor of medicine at Tufts University in Boston and director of the Predictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center there.

The meta-analysis, conducted by the Systematic, Collaborative, PFO Closure Evaluation (SCOPE) consortium, analyzed data from six randomized clinical trials that compared device closure and medical therapy to medical therapy alone in 3,740 patients who had PFO-associated stroke from 2000 to 2017. It was published in JAMA.

Overall, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was less than half that in patients who had device closure, compared with those who were on medical therapy: 0.47% (n = 39 of 1,889) vs. 1.09% (n = 82 of 1,851).

The researchers also applied two tools designed to calculate the probability of recurrent stroke in individual patients: Risk of Paradoxical Embolism (RoPE), an index that assigns a score of 0-10 to stratify cryptogenic stroke patients with PFO by the likelihood that the stroke was associated with their PFO; and the PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood (PASCAL) classification system, which integrates the RoPE score with physiological and anatomical features – namely, the size of the PFO shunt and the presence of an atrial septal aneurysm.

“We came up with a way to more accurately identify those patients who are likely to get the most benefit from PFO closure based on mathematic modeling that estimates an individual’s probability that the PFO is causally related to the stroke,” Dr. Kent said.
 

Multivariate analysis determines risk

The study used a multivariate classification system that Dr. Kent had been developing to perform subgroup analyses of the clinical trials. It assigned patients to three different risk groups based on the likelihood that the PFO was causally related to their stroke: PASCAL categories of unlikely, possible, and probable.

The PASCAL unlikely group had a risk of stroke recurrence in the first 2 years of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1%-5.7%) if they were on medical therapy, and 4.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-6.4%) if they had device closure. In the PASCAL possible group, those risks were 3.6% (95% CI, 2.4%-4.9%) and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7-2.3%), respectively. For the probable group, device closure represents “a near perfect therapy” with a 90% risk reduction, Dr. Kent said. “Moreover,” he said, “adverse events of device closure, such as atrial fibrillation, appear to be concentrated in those patients who fall into the unlikely classification, who appear to get no benefit.”

The ideal patient for device closure is age 60 years or younger and without vascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, a history of smoking, or a prior stroke, but has high-risk PFO features such as a large shunt or atrial septal aneurysm, Dr. Kent said.

“We think these findings should be practice changing now,” Dr. Kent said.

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Advances in technology and genomics have given rise to many issues, such as the extent to which genetic and lifestyle factors contribute to the individual-level risk for coronary artery disease, and the extent one’s genetic risk can be offset by a healthy lifestyle.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

Over the years, Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at the Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, has focused much of his research on this topic. At the virtual ACC Latin America 2021 conference, the cardiologist spoke about his hypotheses and findings during his opening plenary on imaging genomics, an emerging field that is rapidly identifying genes that influence the brain, cognition, and risk for disease.

Dr. Fuster discussed his research (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:2777-91; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:1617-27; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1371-82; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2979-91; Circulation. 2015;131:2104-13) and spoke about his innovative program that looks at cardiovascular health in people from young children to senior citizens. The work has been a process of learning and discovery. “We’re beginning to understand how the disease can develop earlier and how we can prevent it from getting worse. There’s nothing more beneficial than beginning to see how the disease starts in the arteries – something that we’re able to do with imaging technologies that, in the next 2 years, will be available worldwide.” And “by using imaging biomarkers in conjunction with genomic biomarkers, we’re beginning to get an idea earlier on as to whether the person is at risk.”

We need to be talking more about health and healthy arteries and trying to come up with epistemologies that are more modern, Dr. Fuster said. “To be able to see who we actually are is fascinating, and all of this is completely new” with imaging genomics.

Developing cardiovascular disease can be identified in people aged 40-60 years when seven risk factors – obesity, metabolic syndrome, blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, and poor nutrition” – are grouped together, he explained. In their 2015 study, Dr. Fuster and colleagues explored, using high-quality three-dimensional ultrasonography, five areas of the body – right and left carotids, aorta, and right and left iliofemorals – in more than 4,000 people with no history of cardiovascular disease.

“The first thing I want to point out is that the disease originates in a territory that is not commonly evaluated. And we had no idea. We only learned about this development through imaging tests, assessing plaques. The disease starts in the femoral artery and, in fact, it starts with an inflammatory process – seen at autopsy – that can lead to fibrosis and, in later years, can form lipid-rich vulnerable plaque,” he said.

His work has shown an increase in disease progression in groups of people who have been monitored for 20 years. What is most interesting is the way lesions are silent and evolve as the years go by.

“Atherosclerosis appears as a silent phenomenon initially and worsens in the presence of risk factors that trigger its progression,” he said.

But can subclinical disease be identified in people who have few or no risk factors? “What we call normal is not, in fact, normal,” said Dr. Fuster. To not have subclinical disease, LDL cholesterol needs to be 70 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c needs to be 5%-6%, according to a 2020 study by Dr. Fuster and colleagues.

“The fact that we’re seeing people with no apparent risk factors develop atherosclerosis is the reason what we consider normal is not,” he said. It is necessary to take into account what happened in the first 40 years of these individuals’ lives, he added.

Dr. Fuster presented findings on 6,000 people aged 60-100 years underwent three-dimensional ultrasonography and were monitored for 12 years. The data have yet to be published, but they indicate that, with this disease, more than just risk factors are at play; atherosclerosis is related to what happens early on in one’s life.

In their 2016 study of more than 55,000 participants, Dr. Fuster and associates quantified the genetic risk for coronary artery disease with a polygenic risk score derived from an analysis of up to 50 genetic polymorphisms that had been associated with coronary artery disease in previous studies. On the basis of this score, the participants were divided into subgroups by genetic risk: low, intermediate, and high. Genetic and lifestyle factors were independently associated with susceptibility to coronary artery disease. For participants at high genetic risk, a favorable lifestyle was associated with a relative risk for coronary artery disease nearly 50% lower than an unfavorable lifestyle.

The risk factors cause the bone marrow to be activated and, when this happens, an inflammatory process occurs in the arteries. This activation is a defense mechanism designed to help monocytes heal the arteries. “When we’re dealing with a disease in the arteries, inflammation starts in the bone marrow, where cholesterol is deposited, and there are macrophages that, because there’s too much to clean up and they can’t keep up, will actually kill themselves. When that happens, they will release substances that will damage the arteries,” Dr. Fuster reported.

In elderly people, risk factors have an impact not only on the great vessels, they can also lead to cerebral small vessel disease.

“The problem is that, before, we didn’t have the technology to make this observation. And this is something critical with respect to late-onset dementia,” he said, citing a 2016 study on Alzheimer’s disease. Even if risk factors are increasing, the person will not necessarily develop the disease, but there is a greater chance that they will.
 

Education

Playful activities have a major impact in childhood. With this in mind, Dr. Fuster instituted a 6-month, 60-hour educational program for children aged 3-6 years. The approach was aimed at teaching children about healthy eating habits and how the human body works. “Children are able to absorb everything we say, but then at age 10, it all goes away,” he said. With another intervention that involved the same children, he showed that the benefits were greater than those seen in the first intervention.

“Our hypothesis is that, regardless of age, any program that has to do with prevention needs to be repeated,” Dr. Fuster said. “Repetition will bring more benefits every x years. That’s what we’re learning.

“We learned that when these children go home, they tell their parents what to do. The program had a greater impact on the children than their parents. So we need to use repetition in prevention efforts directed at young children. And we need to remember that the later we start this kind of work, the less impact it will have. The sooner things start, the greater the benefit and the lower the cost,” he concluded.

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

Advances in technology and genomics have given rise to many issues, such as the extent to which genetic and lifestyle factors contribute to the individual-level risk for coronary artery disease, and the extent one’s genetic risk can be offset by a healthy lifestyle.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

Over the years, Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at the Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, has focused much of his research on this topic. At the virtual ACC Latin America 2021 conference, the cardiologist spoke about his hypotheses and findings during his opening plenary on imaging genomics, an emerging field that is rapidly identifying genes that influence the brain, cognition, and risk for disease.

Dr. Fuster discussed his research (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:2777-91; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:1617-27; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1371-82; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2979-91; Circulation. 2015;131:2104-13) and spoke about his innovative program that looks at cardiovascular health in people from young children to senior citizens. The work has been a process of learning and discovery. “We’re beginning to understand how the disease can develop earlier and how we can prevent it from getting worse. There’s nothing more beneficial than beginning to see how the disease starts in the arteries – something that we’re able to do with imaging technologies that, in the next 2 years, will be available worldwide.” And “by using imaging biomarkers in conjunction with genomic biomarkers, we’re beginning to get an idea earlier on as to whether the person is at risk.”

We need to be talking more about health and healthy arteries and trying to come up with epistemologies that are more modern, Dr. Fuster said. “To be able to see who we actually are is fascinating, and all of this is completely new” with imaging genomics.

Developing cardiovascular disease can be identified in people aged 40-60 years when seven risk factors – obesity, metabolic syndrome, blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, and poor nutrition” – are grouped together, he explained. In their 2015 study, Dr. Fuster and colleagues explored, using high-quality three-dimensional ultrasonography, five areas of the body – right and left carotids, aorta, and right and left iliofemorals – in more than 4,000 people with no history of cardiovascular disease.

“The first thing I want to point out is that the disease originates in a territory that is not commonly evaluated. And we had no idea. We only learned about this development through imaging tests, assessing plaques. The disease starts in the femoral artery and, in fact, it starts with an inflammatory process – seen at autopsy – that can lead to fibrosis and, in later years, can form lipid-rich vulnerable plaque,” he said.

His work has shown an increase in disease progression in groups of people who have been monitored for 20 years. What is most interesting is the way lesions are silent and evolve as the years go by.

“Atherosclerosis appears as a silent phenomenon initially and worsens in the presence of risk factors that trigger its progression,” he said.

But can subclinical disease be identified in people who have few or no risk factors? “What we call normal is not, in fact, normal,” said Dr. Fuster. To not have subclinical disease, LDL cholesterol needs to be 70 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c needs to be 5%-6%, according to a 2020 study by Dr. Fuster and colleagues.

“The fact that we’re seeing people with no apparent risk factors develop atherosclerosis is the reason what we consider normal is not,” he said. It is necessary to take into account what happened in the first 40 years of these individuals’ lives, he added.

Dr. Fuster presented findings on 6,000 people aged 60-100 years underwent three-dimensional ultrasonography and were monitored for 12 years. The data have yet to be published, but they indicate that, with this disease, more than just risk factors are at play; atherosclerosis is related to what happens early on in one’s life.

In their 2016 study of more than 55,000 participants, Dr. Fuster and associates quantified the genetic risk for coronary artery disease with a polygenic risk score derived from an analysis of up to 50 genetic polymorphisms that had been associated with coronary artery disease in previous studies. On the basis of this score, the participants were divided into subgroups by genetic risk: low, intermediate, and high. Genetic and lifestyle factors were independently associated with susceptibility to coronary artery disease. For participants at high genetic risk, a favorable lifestyle was associated with a relative risk for coronary artery disease nearly 50% lower than an unfavorable lifestyle.

The risk factors cause the bone marrow to be activated and, when this happens, an inflammatory process occurs in the arteries. This activation is a defense mechanism designed to help monocytes heal the arteries. “When we’re dealing with a disease in the arteries, inflammation starts in the bone marrow, where cholesterol is deposited, and there are macrophages that, because there’s too much to clean up and they can’t keep up, will actually kill themselves. When that happens, they will release substances that will damage the arteries,” Dr. Fuster reported.

In elderly people, risk factors have an impact not only on the great vessels, they can also lead to cerebral small vessel disease.

“The problem is that, before, we didn’t have the technology to make this observation. And this is something critical with respect to late-onset dementia,” he said, citing a 2016 study on Alzheimer’s disease. Even if risk factors are increasing, the person will not necessarily develop the disease, but there is a greater chance that they will.
 

Education

Playful activities have a major impact in childhood. With this in mind, Dr. Fuster instituted a 6-month, 60-hour educational program for children aged 3-6 years. The approach was aimed at teaching children about healthy eating habits and how the human body works. “Children are able to absorb everything we say, but then at age 10, it all goes away,” he said. With another intervention that involved the same children, he showed that the benefits were greater than those seen in the first intervention.

“Our hypothesis is that, regardless of age, any program that has to do with prevention needs to be repeated,” Dr. Fuster said. “Repetition will bring more benefits every x years. That’s what we’re learning.

“We learned that when these children go home, they tell their parents what to do. The program had a greater impact on the children than their parents. So we need to use repetition in prevention efforts directed at young children. And we need to remember that the later we start this kind of work, the less impact it will have. The sooner things start, the greater the benefit and the lower the cost,” he concluded.

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

Advances in technology and genomics have given rise to many issues, such as the extent to which genetic and lifestyle factors contribute to the individual-level risk for coronary artery disease, and the extent one’s genetic risk can be offset by a healthy lifestyle.

Mount Sinai Heart/CCA 3.0

Over the years, Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at the Mount Sinai Hospital, both in New York, has focused much of his research on this topic. At the virtual ACC Latin America 2021 conference, the cardiologist spoke about his hypotheses and findings during his opening plenary on imaging genomics, an emerging field that is rapidly identifying genes that influence the brain, cognition, and risk for disease.

Dr. Fuster discussed his research (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:2777-91; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:1617-27; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1371-82; J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:2979-91; Circulation. 2015;131:2104-13) and spoke about his innovative program that looks at cardiovascular health in people from young children to senior citizens. The work has been a process of learning and discovery. “We’re beginning to understand how the disease can develop earlier and how we can prevent it from getting worse. There’s nothing more beneficial than beginning to see how the disease starts in the arteries – something that we’re able to do with imaging technologies that, in the next 2 years, will be available worldwide.” And “by using imaging biomarkers in conjunction with genomic biomarkers, we’re beginning to get an idea earlier on as to whether the person is at risk.”

We need to be talking more about health and healthy arteries and trying to come up with epistemologies that are more modern, Dr. Fuster said. “To be able to see who we actually are is fascinating, and all of this is completely new” with imaging genomics.

Developing cardiovascular disease can be identified in people aged 40-60 years when seven risk factors – obesity, metabolic syndrome, blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, and poor nutrition” – are grouped together, he explained. In their 2015 study, Dr. Fuster and colleagues explored, using high-quality three-dimensional ultrasonography, five areas of the body – right and left carotids, aorta, and right and left iliofemorals – in more than 4,000 people with no history of cardiovascular disease.

“The first thing I want to point out is that the disease originates in a territory that is not commonly evaluated. And we had no idea. We only learned about this development through imaging tests, assessing plaques. The disease starts in the femoral artery and, in fact, it starts with an inflammatory process – seen at autopsy – that can lead to fibrosis and, in later years, can form lipid-rich vulnerable plaque,” he said.

His work has shown an increase in disease progression in groups of people who have been monitored for 20 years. What is most interesting is the way lesions are silent and evolve as the years go by.

“Atherosclerosis appears as a silent phenomenon initially and worsens in the presence of risk factors that trigger its progression,” he said.

But can subclinical disease be identified in people who have few or no risk factors? “What we call normal is not, in fact, normal,” said Dr. Fuster. To not have subclinical disease, LDL cholesterol needs to be 70 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c needs to be 5%-6%, according to a 2020 study by Dr. Fuster and colleagues.

“The fact that we’re seeing people with no apparent risk factors develop atherosclerosis is the reason what we consider normal is not,” he said. It is necessary to take into account what happened in the first 40 years of these individuals’ lives, he added.

Dr. Fuster presented findings on 6,000 people aged 60-100 years underwent three-dimensional ultrasonography and were monitored for 12 years. The data have yet to be published, but they indicate that, with this disease, more than just risk factors are at play; atherosclerosis is related to what happens early on in one’s life.

In their 2016 study of more than 55,000 participants, Dr. Fuster and associates quantified the genetic risk for coronary artery disease with a polygenic risk score derived from an analysis of up to 50 genetic polymorphisms that had been associated with coronary artery disease in previous studies. On the basis of this score, the participants were divided into subgroups by genetic risk: low, intermediate, and high. Genetic and lifestyle factors were independently associated with susceptibility to coronary artery disease. For participants at high genetic risk, a favorable lifestyle was associated with a relative risk for coronary artery disease nearly 50% lower than an unfavorable lifestyle.

The risk factors cause the bone marrow to be activated and, when this happens, an inflammatory process occurs in the arteries. This activation is a defense mechanism designed to help monocytes heal the arteries. “When we’re dealing with a disease in the arteries, inflammation starts in the bone marrow, where cholesterol is deposited, and there are macrophages that, because there’s too much to clean up and they can’t keep up, will actually kill themselves. When that happens, they will release substances that will damage the arteries,” Dr. Fuster reported.

In elderly people, risk factors have an impact not only on the great vessels, they can also lead to cerebral small vessel disease.

“The problem is that, before, we didn’t have the technology to make this observation. And this is something critical with respect to late-onset dementia,” he said, citing a 2016 study on Alzheimer’s disease. Even if risk factors are increasing, the person will not necessarily develop the disease, but there is a greater chance that they will.
 

Education

Playful activities have a major impact in childhood. With this in mind, Dr. Fuster instituted a 6-month, 60-hour educational program for children aged 3-6 years. The approach was aimed at teaching children about healthy eating habits and how the human body works. “Children are able to absorb everything we say, but then at age 10, it all goes away,” he said. With another intervention that involved the same children, he showed that the benefits were greater than those seen in the first intervention.

“Our hypothesis is that, regardless of age, any program that has to do with prevention needs to be repeated,” Dr. Fuster said. “Repetition will bring more benefits every x years. That’s what we’re learning.

“We learned that when these children go home, they tell their parents what to do. The program had a greater impact on the children than their parents. So we need to use repetition in prevention efforts directed at young children. And we need to remember that the later we start this kind of work, the less impact it will have. The sooner things start, the greater the benefit and the lower the cost,” he concluded.

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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