MDedge Cardiology

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

Boil ‘em, mash ‘em, include ‘em in a balanced diet

It’s kind of funny that, even though potatoes are vegetables and vegetables are generally considered to be healthy foods, not many people think of potatoes as being particularly good for you. And that’s hardly surprising since we usually either consume them in the form of French fries or potato chips, neither of which are known for their healthiness.

PxHere

In fact, some previous research shows that potatoes are a food to avoid, particularly for people with insulin resistance. However, a new study from England goes against the grain and asserts that the potato is perfectly fine for insulin-resistant individuals and filled with valuable nutrients and health benefits. Which is great news for the state of Idaho and the potato organization funding the research. Of course there’s a potato organization.

For the study, a group of obese, overweight, or insulin-resistant individuals received a diet of either beans, peas, and meat or fish or white potatoes with meat or fish for 8 weeks; both diets were heavy in fruits and vegetables and both diets replaced about 40% of typical meat consumption with either beans and peas or potatoes. By the end of the study, those on the potato diet experienced health benefits equivalent to those on the bean and pea diet, including losing roughly equivalent amounts of weight and similarly reducing the body’s insulin response.

The researchers noted that, because people tend to eat the same amount of food no matter what, replacing something like meat with dense, low-calorie potatoes meant study participants could eat normally yet consume much fewer calories. So you could make a delicious, healthy stew without the brace of conies and the nice fish, which would make Smeagol very happy.
 

You won’t have ‘monkeypox’ to kick around anymore

It’s true. No more monkeypox. It’s gone. It’s history. Adios. The World Health Organization said that the disease formerly known as monkeypox will now be called mpox. What? You didn’t think it had been cured, did you? You did? Really? Silly readers.

NIAID

“Mpox will become a preferred term, replacing monkeypox, after a transition period of 1 year. This serves to mitigate the concerns raised by experts about confusion caused by a name change in the midst of a global outbreak,” WHO said in a statement announcing the change.

The stigma attached to the name was the main problem. New York City Health Commissioner Dr. Ashwin Vasan had sent a letter to WHO earlier this year, according to CNN, saying that there was “growing concern for the potentially devastating and stigmatizing effects that the messaging around the ‘monkeypox’ virus can have on … vulnerable communities.”

We here at LOTME applaud the fight against stigmas of any sort, but we sensed there was more to this name change business, so our dedicated team of investigative journalists went into action. Sure enough, while rooting through WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’s garbage, we found a list of the names that had been rejected in favor of mpox:

• K-pop (already taken)
• Keeping up with the Kardashi-pox
• Trumpox
• Pox the magic dragon
• Monkey plague (didn’t really solve the problem)
• Hockey pox
• Mission mpoxible
• Jurassic Pox
• The pox that refreshes
• Debbie

Feet catch what the ears miss

The spectrum of frequencies that can be heard by human ears varies from person to person. Then there’s the matter of personal taste in music and volume level. But what really gets people moving? A new study shows that it’s more about the frequency of the sound than the volume.

PxHere

For the study, participants at a concert by electronic music duo Orphx at LIVELab – a research performance center on the McMaster University campus in Hamilton, Ont., that was specifically designed to study music and dance – filled out questionnaires before and after the show. They also wore motion-capture headbands to detect their movement throughout the concert. During the show the researchers turned very-low-frequency (VLF) sounds (8-37 Hz) on and off every 2.5 minutes. Movement speed was calculated during on and off periods.

Although the effects of subliminal messaging aren’t new, past studies have shown that participants were mostly aware of the messaging. In this study, the researchers found that the subjects’ movements increased by 11.8% when the VLF sounds were on, but without their awareness. The researchers and the participants attributed movement to the bass, as lower pitches tend to elicit stronger neural responses and thus movement, compared with higher pitches.

“Our whole sense of the beat is mediated by the vestibular system but nobody’s really, I think, effectively confirmed that,” Jonathan Cannon, an assistant professor of psychology, neuroscience, and behavior at McMaster who not involved in the study, told Live Science.

Not to say this study didn’t have its limitations, such as the effect of the surrounding crowd or vibrations of the floor influencing the need to dance. But it definitely makes you wonder about what’s actually playing in your favorite song.
 

Uncle Leonid wants you

Do you like to travel? Are you a bit of a thrill seeker? Do you have any extra socks? If you’re a physician who answered yes to those three questions, then we’ve got an opportunity for you.

Bicanski/Pixnio

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia’s populist Liberal Democratic Party and chairman of the foreign relations committee in the lower house of Russia’s parliament – yes, that Leonid Slutsky – recently made a bit of a recruiting pitch, although that’s not how ABC News described it.

Mr. Slutsky, a strong supporter of his country’s war against Ukraine, recently told the mothers of Russian soldiers “that the whole world is watching us. We are the largest state and when we do not have socks, shorts, doctors, intelligence, communications, or simply care for our children, questions arise that will be very difficult to answer.”

It’s probably not what he meant, but the lack of intelligence is pretty clear.

A new collaborative position paper on radiation exposure during pregnancy states that pregnant women can safely work in an ionizing radiation environment if exposure to the fetus does not exceed certain dose thresholds.

The position paper aims to “avoid discouraging” women from pursuing careers in interventional cardiology/electrophysiology (IC/EP) and to “dismantle” a barrier that says, “activity under x-rays, without any weighting, is incompatible with continuation of pregnancy,” lead author Stéphane Manzo-Silberman, MD, of AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, told this news organization.

“The main point of the statement is to show that it is possible and safe to maintain activity under radiation during pregnancy, [given] the data we have on the risk for the fetus at exposed doses, the regulations, and feedback from practice,” she said. “The data we currently have allowed us to be largely reassuring.”

The research showed that adverse effects on a fetus generally occur when radiation exposure is greater than 100 mGy. Most countries that permit pregnant women to work in IC/EP require that the cumulative dose during the pregnancy be less than 1 mSv. An exception is the United States, which permits a cumulative dose of less than 5 mSv.

The position paper, a collaboration among the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, the European Society of Cardiology Regulatory Affairs Committee, and Women as One, was published online in EuroIntervention.

The position paper covers regulations in various countries; fetal radiation doses that have been associated with ill effects, including abortion, malformations, and intelligence quotient reductions; the spontaneous probability of having a newborn with a congenital malformation or childhood cancer; and proposals to improve practice.

Highlights include the following:
 

• European, North American, Japanese, and Australian regulations permit pregnant women to work if closely monitored with an abdominal dosimeter; some countries, such as Austria, Hungary, Portugal, and Romania, do not allow women to work in IC/EP during pregnancy or breastfeeding.
• The maximum fetal dose exposure during pregnancy is 1 mSv in Europe, Australia, and Israel; 2 mSv in Japan; and 5 mSv in the United States.
• Doses associated with fetal harm are 100 times higher than those allowed during an interventional cardiologist’s entire pregnancy.
• There is a negligible risk increase in the spontaneous probability of a newborn having a congenital malformation or childhood cancer when the occupational exposure range of the mother respects a country’s limits.
• No studies have shown an increased risk of noncancerous adverse effects from prenatal radiation exposure less than 50 mSv.

To improve practice, the position paper suggests the following:

• Fluoroscopy operators must be guided by the “as low as reasonably achievable” principle: Obtaining optimal images must be balanced with procedure safety.
• Scatter radiation emitted from the patient is the main source of radiation exposure to the operator and personnel; reducing radiation to the patient will reduce exposure for staff.
• The three fundamentals of radiation safety for an operator are (1) time, (2) distance, and (3) shielding and dosimeter monitoring. Time refers to the amount of time the operator spends using the x-ray system; distance means maximizing distance from the x-ray source; and shielding includes personal, tableside, or external protection, with each form having a degree of lead equivalence defining its radiation protective effect.
• Changes in medical school curricula and creating a friendlier workplace environment for families and pregnant interventionists are among the strategies that will promote gender equity in the profession.

“Institutional radiation protection programs should be established to increase knowledge about radiation exposure and improve specific safety requirements for everyone. This would ensure safe exposure for all physicians, [including] during pregnancy,” Dr. Manzo-Silberman concluded.

Furthermore, she said, “As has already been demonstrated in the business world, improving representation and gender equity and diversity is key to improving results and efficiency. In the field of health, this translates into better care for our patients and better working conditions for health care professionals.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. Dr. Manzo-Silberman has received consulting fees from Bayer, Organon, and Exeltis; lecture fees from Bayer, BMS, Exeltis, and Organon; and has served on the adjudication board for a study for Biotronik.

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

A new collaborative position paper on radiation exposure during pregnancy states that pregnant women can safely work in an ionizing radiation environment if exposure to the fetus does not exceed certain dose thresholds.

The position paper aims to “avoid discouraging” women from pursuing careers in interventional cardiology/electrophysiology (IC/EP) and to “dismantle” a barrier that says, “activity under x-rays, without any weighting, is incompatible with continuation of pregnancy,” lead author Stéphane Manzo-Silberman, MD, of AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, told this news organization.

“The main point of the statement is to show that it is possible and safe to maintain activity under radiation during pregnancy, [given] the data we have on the risk for the fetus at exposed doses, the regulations, and feedback from practice,” she said. “The data we currently have allowed us to be largely reassuring.”

The research showed that adverse effects on a fetus generally occur when radiation exposure is greater than 100 mGy. Most countries that permit pregnant women to work in IC/EP require that the cumulative dose during the pregnancy be less than 1 mSv. An exception is the United States, which permits a cumulative dose of less than 5 mSv.

The position paper, a collaboration among the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, the European Society of Cardiology Regulatory Affairs Committee, and Women as One, was published online in EuroIntervention.

The position paper covers regulations in various countries; fetal radiation doses that have been associated with ill effects, including abortion, malformations, and intelligence quotient reductions; the spontaneous probability of having a newborn with a congenital malformation or childhood cancer; and proposals to improve practice.

Highlights include the following:
 

• European, North American, Japanese, and Australian regulations permit pregnant women to work if closely monitored with an abdominal dosimeter; some countries, such as Austria, Hungary, Portugal, and Romania, do not allow women to work in IC/EP during pregnancy or breastfeeding.
• The maximum fetal dose exposure during pregnancy is 1 mSv in Europe, Australia, and Israel; 2 mSv in Japan; and 5 mSv in the United States.
• Doses associated with fetal harm are 100 times higher than those allowed during an interventional cardiologist’s entire pregnancy.
• There is a negligible risk increase in the spontaneous probability of a newborn having a congenital malformation or childhood cancer when the occupational exposure range of the mother respects a country’s limits.
• No studies have shown an increased risk of noncancerous adverse effects from prenatal radiation exposure less than 50 mSv.

To improve practice, the position paper suggests the following:

• Fluoroscopy operators must be guided by the “as low as reasonably achievable” principle: Obtaining optimal images must be balanced with procedure safety.
• Scatter radiation emitted from the patient is the main source of radiation exposure to the operator and personnel; reducing radiation to the patient will reduce exposure for staff.
• The three fundamentals of radiation safety for an operator are (1) time, (2) distance, and (3) shielding and dosimeter monitoring. Time refers to the amount of time the operator spends using the x-ray system; distance means maximizing distance from the x-ray source; and shielding includes personal, tableside, or external protection, with each form having a degree of lead equivalence defining its radiation protective effect.
• Changes in medical school curricula and creating a friendlier workplace environment for families and pregnant interventionists are among the strategies that will promote gender equity in the profession.

“Institutional radiation protection programs should be established to increase knowledge about radiation exposure and improve specific safety requirements for everyone. This would ensure safe exposure for all physicians, [including] during pregnancy,” Dr. Manzo-Silberman concluded.

Furthermore, she said, “As has already been demonstrated in the business world, improving representation and gender equity and diversity is key to improving results and efficiency. In the field of health, this translates into better care for our patients and better working conditions for health care professionals.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. Dr. Manzo-Silberman has received consulting fees from Bayer, Organon, and Exeltis; lecture fees from Bayer, BMS, Exeltis, and Organon; and has served on the adjudication board for a study for Biotronik.

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

A new collaborative position paper on radiation exposure during pregnancy states that pregnant women can safely work in an ionizing radiation environment if exposure to the fetus does not exceed certain dose thresholds.

The position paper aims to “avoid discouraging” women from pursuing careers in interventional cardiology/electrophysiology (IC/EP) and to “dismantle” a barrier that says, “activity under x-rays, without any weighting, is incompatible with continuation of pregnancy,” lead author Stéphane Manzo-Silberman, MD, of AP-HP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, told this news organization.

“The main point of the statement is to show that it is possible and safe to maintain activity under radiation during pregnancy, [given] the data we have on the risk for the fetus at exposed doses, the regulations, and feedback from practice,” she said. “The data we currently have allowed us to be largely reassuring.”

The research showed that adverse effects on a fetus generally occur when radiation exposure is greater than 100 mGy. Most countries that permit pregnant women to work in IC/EP require that the cumulative dose during the pregnancy be less than 1 mSv. An exception is the United States, which permits a cumulative dose of less than 5 mSv.

The position paper, a collaboration among the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, the European Society of Cardiology Regulatory Affairs Committee, and Women as One, was published online in EuroIntervention.

The position paper covers regulations in various countries; fetal radiation doses that have been associated with ill effects, including abortion, malformations, and intelligence quotient reductions; the spontaneous probability of having a newborn with a congenital malformation or childhood cancer; and proposals to improve practice.

Highlights include the following:
 

• European, North American, Japanese, and Australian regulations permit pregnant women to work if closely monitored with an abdominal dosimeter; some countries, such as Austria, Hungary, Portugal, and Romania, do not allow women to work in IC/EP during pregnancy or breastfeeding.
• The maximum fetal dose exposure during pregnancy is 1 mSv in Europe, Australia, and Israel; 2 mSv in Japan; and 5 mSv in the United States.
• Doses associated with fetal harm are 100 times higher than those allowed during an interventional cardiologist’s entire pregnancy.
• There is a negligible risk increase in the spontaneous probability of a newborn having a congenital malformation or childhood cancer when the occupational exposure range of the mother respects a country’s limits.
• No studies have shown an increased risk of noncancerous adverse effects from prenatal radiation exposure less than 50 mSv.

To improve practice, the position paper suggests the following:

• Fluoroscopy operators must be guided by the “as low as reasonably achievable” principle: Obtaining optimal images must be balanced with procedure safety.
• Scatter radiation emitted from the patient is the main source of radiation exposure to the operator and personnel; reducing radiation to the patient will reduce exposure for staff.
• The three fundamentals of radiation safety for an operator are (1) time, (2) distance, and (3) shielding and dosimeter monitoring. Time refers to the amount of time the operator spends using the x-ray system; distance means maximizing distance from the x-ray source; and shielding includes personal, tableside, or external protection, with each form having a degree of lead equivalence defining its radiation protective effect.
• Changes in medical school curricula and creating a friendlier workplace environment for families and pregnant interventionists are among the strategies that will promote gender equity in the profession.

“Institutional radiation protection programs should be established to increase knowledge about radiation exposure and improve specific safety requirements for everyone. This would ensure safe exposure for all physicians, [including] during pregnancy,” Dr. Manzo-Silberman concluded.

Furthermore, she said, “As has already been demonstrated in the business world, improving representation and gender equity and diversity is key to improving results and efficiency. In the field of health, this translates into better care for our patients and better working conditions for health care professionals.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. Dr. Manzo-Silberman has received consulting fees from Bayer, Organon, and Exeltis; lecture fees from Bayer, BMS, Exeltis, and Organon; and has served on the adjudication board for a study for Biotronik.

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

Many more people are at risk for early cardiovascular events because of raised lipoprotein(a) levels than from having familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), a new study suggests.

The Danish study set out to try and establish a level of Lp(a) that would be associated with a cardiovascular risk similar to that seen with FH. As there are many different definitions of FH, results showed a large range of Lp(a) values that corresponded to risk levels of the different FH definitions.

However, if considering one of the broadest FH definitions (from MEDPED – Make Early Diagnoses, Prevent Early Deaths), which is the one most commonly used in the United States, results showed that the level of cardiovascular risk in patients with this definition of FH is similar to that associated with Lp(a) levels of around 70 mg/dL (0.7 g/L).

“While FH is fairly unusual, occurring in less than 1% of the population, levels of Lp(a) of 70 mg/dL or above are much more common, occurring in around 10% of the White population,” Børge Nordestgaard, MD, Copenhagen University Hospital, said in an interview. Around 20% of the Black population have such high levels, while levels in Hispanics are in between.

“Our results suggest that there will be many more individuals at risk of premature MI or cardiovascular death because of raised Lp(a) levels than because of FH,” added Dr. Nordestgaard, the senior author of the current study.

Dr. Nordestgaard explained that FH is well established to be a serious condition. “We consider FH to be the genetic disease that causes the most cases of early heart disease and early death worldwide.”

“But we know now that raised levels of Lp(a), which is also genetically determined, can also lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events relatively early in life, and when you look into the numbers, it seems like high levels of Lp(a) could be more common than FH. We wanted to try and find the levels of Lp(a) that corresponded to similar cardiovascular risk as FH.”

The Danish study was published  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors note that the 2019 joint European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines suggested that an Lp(a) level greater than 180 mg/dL (0.8 g/L) may confer a lifetime risk for heart disease equivalent to the risk associated with heterozygous FH, but they point out that this value was speculative and not based on a direct comparison of risk associated with the two conditions in the same population.

For their study, Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues analyzed information from a large database of the Danish population, the Copenhagen General Population Study, including 69,644 individuals for whom data on FH and Lp(a) levels were available. As these conditions are genetically determined, and the study held records on individuals going back several decades, the researchers were able to analyze event rates over a median follow up time of 42 years. During this time, there were 4,166 cases of myocardial infarction and 11,464 cases of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Results showed that Lp(a) levels associated with MI risk equivalent to that of clinical FH ranged from 67 to 402 mg/dL depending on the definition used for FH. The Lp(a) level corresponding to the MI risk of genetically determined FH was 180 mg/dL.

In terms of risk of ASCVD events, the levels of Lp(a) corresponding to the risk associated with clinical FH ranged from 130 to 391 mg/dL, and the Lp(a) level corresponding to the ASCVD risk of genetically determined FH was 175 mg/dL.

“All these different definitions of FH may cause some confusion, but basically we are saying that if an individual is found to have an Lp(a) above 70 mg/dL, then they have a similar level of cardiovascular risk as that associated with the broadest definition of FH, and they should be taken as seriously as a patient diagnosed with FH,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

He estimated that these individuals have approximately a doubling of cardiovascular risk, compared with the general population, and risk increases further with rising Lp(a) levels.

The researchers also found that if an individual has both FH and raised Lp(a) they are at very high risk, as these two conditions are independent of each other.

Although a specific treatment for lowering Lp(a) levels is not yet available, Dr. Nordestgaard stresses that it is still worth identifying individuals with raised Lp(a) as efforts can be made to address other cardiovascular risk factors.

“We know raised Lp(a) increases cardiovascular risk, but there are also many other factors that likewise increase this risk, and they are all additive. So, it is very important that individuals with raised Lp(a) levels address these other risk factors,” he said. “These include stopping smoking, being at healthy weight, exercising regularly, eating a heart-healthy diet, and aggressive treatment of raised LDL, hypertension, and diabetes. All these things will lower their overall risk of cardiovascular disease.”

And there is the promise of new drugs to lower Lp(a) on the horizon, with several such products now in clinical development.

Dr. Nordestgaard also points out that as Lp(a) is genetically determined, cascade screening of close relatives of the individual with raised Lp(a) should also take place to detect others who may be at risk.

Although a level of Lp(a) of around 70 mg/dL confers similar cardiovascular risk than some definitions of FH, Dr. Nordestgaard says lower levels than this should also be a signal for concern. 

“We usually say Lp(a) levels of 50 mg/dL are when we need to start to take this seriously. And it’s estimated that about 20% of the White population will have levels of 50 mg/dL or over and even more in the Black population,” he added. 
 

‘Screen for both conditions’

In an accompanying editorial, Pamela Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Jagat Narula, MD, Icahn School of Medicine, New York; and Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, say “the weight of evidence strongly supports that both genetic lipid disorders, elevated Lp(a) levels and FH, are causally associated with an increased risk of premature ASCVD and should be carefully considered in risk assessment and management for ASCVD risk reduction.”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Dr. Morris told this news organization that the current study found a very large range of Lp(a) levels that conferred a similar cardiovascular risk to FH, because of the many different definitions of FH in use.

“But this should not take away the importance of screening for raised Lp(a) levels,” she stressed.  

“We know that increased Lp(a) levels signal a high risk of cardiovascular disease. A diagnosis of FH is also a high-risk condition,” she said. “Both are important, and we need to screen for both, but it is difficult to directly compare the two conditions because the different definitions of FH get in the way.”

Dr. Morris agrees with Dr. Nordestgaard that raised levels of Lp(a) may actually be more important for the population risk of cardiovascular disease than FH, as the prevalence of increased Lp(a) levels is higher.

“Because raised Lp(a) levels are more prevalent than confirmed FH, the risk to the population is greater,” she said.  

Dr. Morris points out that cardiovascular risk starts to increase at Lp(a) levels of 30 mg/dL (75 nmol/L).

The editorialists recommend that “in addition to performing a lipid panel periodically according to evidence-based guidelines, measurement of Lp(a) levels should also be performed at least once in an individual’s lifetime for ASCVD risk assessment.”

They conclude that “it is vital to continue to raise awareness among clinicians and patients of these high-risk genetic lipid disorders. Our understanding of both disorders is rapidly expanding, and promising novel therapeutics may offer hope for prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels in the future.”

This work was supported by Copenhagen University Hospital – Herlev Gentofte, Denmark, and the Danish Beckett-Foundation. The Copenhagen General Population Study is supported by the Copenhagen County Foundation and Copenhagen University Hospital – Herlev Gentofte. Dr. Nordestgaard has been a consultant and a speaker for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Silence Therapeutics, Abbott, and Esperion.

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

Many more people are at risk for early cardiovascular events because of raised lipoprotein(a) levels than from having familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), a new study suggests.

The Danish study set out to try and establish a level of Lp(a) that would be associated with a cardiovascular risk similar to that seen with FH. As there are many different definitions of FH, results showed a large range of Lp(a) values that corresponded to risk levels of the different FH definitions.

However, if considering one of the broadest FH definitions (from MEDPED – Make Early Diagnoses, Prevent Early Deaths), which is the one most commonly used in the United States, results showed that the level of cardiovascular risk in patients with this definition of FH is similar to that associated with Lp(a) levels of around 70 mg/dL (0.7 g/L).

“While FH is fairly unusual, occurring in less than 1% of the population, levels of Lp(a) of 70 mg/dL or above are much more common, occurring in around 10% of the White population,” Børge Nordestgaard, MD, Copenhagen University Hospital, said in an interview. Around 20% of the Black population have such high levels, while levels in Hispanics are in between.

“Our results suggest that there will be many more individuals at risk of premature MI or cardiovascular death because of raised Lp(a) levels than because of FH,” added Dr. Nordestgaard, the senior author of the current study.

Dr. Nordestgaard explained that FH is well established to be a serious condition. “We consider FH to be the genetic disease that causes the most cases of early heart disease and early death worldwide.”

“But we know now that raised levels of Lp(a), which is also genetically determined, can also lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events relatively early in life, and when you look into the numbers, it seems like high levels of Lp(a) could be more common than FH. We wanted to try and find the levels of Lp(a) that corresponded to similar cardiovascular risk as FH.”

The Danish study was published  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors note that the 2019 joint European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines suggested that an Lp(a) level greater than 180 mg/dL (0.8 g/L) may confer a lifetime risk for heart disease equivalent to the risk associated with heterozygous FH, but they point out that this value was speculative and not based on a direct comparison of risk associated with the two conditions in the same population.

For their study, Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues analyzed information from a large database of the Danish population, the Copenhagen General Population Study, including 69,644 individuals for whom data on FH and Lp(a) levels were available. As these conditions are genetically determined, and the study held records on individuals going back several decades, the researchers were able to analyze event rates over a median follow up time of 42 years. During this time, there were 4,166 cases of myocardial infarction and 11,464 cases of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Results showed that Lp(a) levels associated with MI risk equivalent to that of clinical FH ranged from 67 to 402 mg/dL depending on the definition used for FH. The Lp(a) level corresponding to the MI risk of genetically determined FH was 180 mg/dL.

In terms of risk of ASCVD events, the levels of Lp(a) corresponding to the risk associated with clinical FH ranged from 130 to 391 mg/dL, and the Lp(a) level corresponding to the ASCVD risk of genetically determined FH was 175 mg/dL.

“All these different definitions of FH may cause some confusion, but basically we are saying that if an individual is found to have an Lp(a) above 70 mg/dL, then they have a similar level of cardiovascular risk as that associated with the broadest definition of FH, and they should be taken as seriously as a patient diagnosed with FH,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

He estimated that these individuals have approximately a doubling of cardiovascular risk, compared with the general population, and risk increases further with rising Lp(a) levels.

The researchers also found that if an individual has both FH and raised Lp(a) they are at very high risk, as these two conditions are independent of each other.

Although a specific treatment for lowering Lp(a) levels is not yet available, Dr. Nordestgaard stresses that it is still worth identifying individuals with raised Lp(a) as efforts can be made to address other cardiovascular risk factors.

“We know raised Lp(a) increases cardiovascular risk, but there are also many other factors that likewise increase this risk, and they are all additive. So, it is very important that individuals with raised Lp(a) levels address these other risk factors,” he said. “These include stopping smoking, being at healthy weight, exercising regularly, eating a heart-healthy diet, and aggressive treatment of raised LDL, hypertension, and diabetes. All these things will lower their overall risk of cardiovascular disease.”

And there is the promise of new drugs to lower Lp(a) on the horizon, with several such products now in clinical development.

Dr. Nordestgaard also points out that as Lp(a) is genetically determined, cascade screening of close relatives of the individual with raised Lp(a) should also take place to detect others who may be at risk.

Although a level of Lp(a) of around 70 mg/dL confers similar cardiovascular risk than some definitions of FH, Dr. Nordestgaard says lower levels than this should also be a signal for concern. 

“We usually say Lp(a) levels of 50 mg/dL are when we need to start to take this seriously. And it’s estimated that about 20% of the White population will have levels of 50 mg/dL or over and even more in the Black population,” he added. 
 

‘Screen for both conditions’

In an accompanying editorial, Pamela Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Jagat Narula, MD, Icahn School of Medicine, New York; and Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, say “the weight of evidence strongly supports that both genetic lipid disorders, elevated Lp(a) levels and FH, are causally associated with an increased risk of premature ASCVD and should be carefully considered in risk assessment and management for ASCVD risk reduction.”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Dr. Morris told this news organization that the current study found a very large range of Lp(a) levels that conferred a similar cardiovascular risk to FH, because of the many different definitions of FH in use.

“But this should not take away the importance of screening for raised Lp(a) levels,” she stressed.  

“We know that increased Lp(a) levels signal a high risk of cardiovascular disease. A diagnosis of FH is also a high-risk condition,” she said. “Both are important, and we need to screen for both, but it is difficult to directly compare the two conditions because the different definitions of FH get in the way.”

Dr. Morris agrees with Dr. Nordestgaard that raised levels of Lp(a) may actually be more important for the population risk of cardiovascular disease than FH, as the prevalence of increased Lp(a) levels is higher.

“Because raised Lp(a) levels are more prevalent than confirmed FH, the risk to the population is greater,” she said.  

Dr. Morris points out that cardiovascular risk starts to increase at Lp(a) levels of 30 mg/dL (75 nmol/L).

The editorialists recommend that “in addition to performing a lipid panel periodically according to evidence-based guidelines, measurement of Lp(a) levels should also be performed at least once in an individual’s lifetime for ASCVD risk assessment.”

They conclude that “it is vital to continue to raise awareness among clinicians and patients of these high-risk genetic lipid disorders. Our understanding of both disorders is rapidly expanding, and promising novel therapeutics may offer hope for prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels in the future.”

This work was supported by Copenhagen University Hospital – Herlev Gentofte, Denmark, and the Danish Beckett-Foundation. The Copenhagen General Population Study is supported by the Copenhagen County Foundation and Copenhagen University Hospital – Herlev Gentofte. Dr. Nordestgaard has been a consultant and a speaker for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Silence Therapeutics, Abbott, and Esperion.

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

Many more people are at risk for early cardiovascular events because of raised lipoprotein(a) levels than from having familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), a new study suggests.

The Danish study set out to try and establish a level of Lp(a) that would be associated with a cardiovascular risk similar to that seen with FH. As there are many different definitions of FH, results showed a large range of Lp(a) values that corresponded to risk levels of the different FH definitions.

However, if considering one of the broadest FH definitions (from MEDPED – Make Early Diagnoses, Prevent Early Deaths), which is the one most commonly used in the United States, results showed that the level of cardiovascular risk in patients with this definition of FH is similar to that associated with Lp(a) levels of around 70 mg/dL (0.7 g/L).

“While FH is fairly unusual, occurring in less than 1% of the population, levels of Lp(a) of 70 mg/dL or above are much more common, occurring in around 10% of the White population,” Børge Nordestgaard, MD, Copenhagen University Hospital, said in an interview. Around 20% of the Black population have such high levels, while levels in Hispanics are in between.

“Our results suggest that there will be many more individuals at risk of premature MI or cardiovascular death because of raised Lp(a) levels than because of FH,” added Dr. Nordestgaard, the senior author of the current study.

Dr. Nordestgaard explained that FH is well established to be a serious condition. “We consider FH to be the genetic disease that causes the most cases of early heart disease and early death worldwide.”

“But we know now that raised levels of Lp(a), which is also genetically determined, can also lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events relatively early in life, and when you look into the numbers, it seems like high levels of Lp(a) could be more common than FH. We wanted to try and find the levels of Lp(a) that corresponded to similar cardiovascular risk as FH.”

The Danish study was published  in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors note that the 2019 joint European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines suggested that an Lp(a) level greater than 180 mg/dL (0.8 g/L) may confer a lifetime risk for heart disease equivalent to the risk associated with heterozygous FH, but they point out that this value was speculative and not based on a direct comparison of risk associated with the two conditions in the same population.

For their study, Dr. Nordestgaard and colleagues analyzed information from a large database of the Danish population, the Copenhagen General Population Study, including 69,644 individuals for whom data on FH and Lp(a) levels were available. As these conditions are genetically determined, and the study held records on individuals going back several decades, the researchers were able to analyze event rates over a median follow up time of 42 years. During this time, there were 4,166 cases of myocardial infarction and 11,464 cases of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Results showed that Lp(a) levels associated with MI risk equivalent to that of clinical FH ranged from 67 to 402 mg/dL depending on the definition used for FH. The Lp(a) level corresponding to the MI risk of genetically determined FH was 180 mg/dL.

In terms of risk of ASCVD events, the levels of Lp(a) corresponding to the risk associated with clinical FH ranged from 130 to 391 mg/dL, and the Lp(a) level corresponding to the ASCVD risk of genetically determined FH was 175 mg/dL.

“All these different definitions of FH may cause some confusion, but basically we are saying that if an individual is found to have an Lp(a) above 70 mg/dL, then they have a similar level of cardiovascular risk as that associated with the broadest definition of FH, and they should be taken as seriously as a patient diagnosed with FH,” Dr. Nordestgaard said.

He estimated that these individuals have approximately a doubling of cardiovascular risk, compared with the general population, and risk increases further with rising Lp(a) levels.

The researchers also found that if an individual has both FH and raised Lp(a) they are at very high risk, as these two conditions are independent of each other.

Although a specific treatment for lowering Lp(a) levels is not yet available, Dr. Nordestgaard stresses that it is still worth identifying individuals with raised Lp(a) as efforts can be made to address other cardiovascular risk factors.

“We know raised Lp(a) increases cardiovascular risk, but there are also many other factors that likewise increase this risk, and they are all additive. So, it is very important that individuals with raised Lp(a) levels address these other risk factors,” he said. “These include stopping smoking, being at healthy weight, exercising regularly, eating a heart-healthy diet, and aggressive treatment of raised LDL, hypertension, and diabetes. All these things will lower their overall risk of cardiovascular disease.”

And there is the promise of new drugs to lower Lp(a) on the horizon, with several such products now in clinical development.

Dr. Nordestgaard also points out that as Lp(a) is genetically determined, cascade screening of close relatives of the individual with raised Lp(a) should also take place to detect others who may be at risk.

Although a level of Lp(a) of around 70 mg/dL confers similar cardiovascular risk than some definitions of FH, Dr. Nordestgaard says lower levels than this should also be a signal for concern. 

“We usually say Lp(a) levels of 50 mg/dL are when we need to start to take this seriously. And it’s estimated that about 20% of the White population will have levels of 50 mg/dL or over and even more in the Black population,” he added. 
 

‘Screen for both conditions’

In an accompanying editorial, Pamela Morris, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston; Jagat Narula, MD, Icahn School of Medicine, New York; and Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, say “the weight of evidence strongly supports that both genetic lipid disorders, elevated Lp(a) levels and FH, are causally associated with an increased risk of premature ASCVD and should be carefully considered in risk assessment and management for ASCVD risk reduction.”

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Dr. Morris told this news organization that the current study found a very large range of Lp(a) levels that conferred a similar cardiovascular risk to FH, because of the many different definitions of FH in use.

“But this should not take away the importance of screening for raised Lp(a) levels,” she stressed.  

“We know that increased Lp(a) levels signal a high risk of cardiovascular disease. A diagnosis of FH is also a high-risk condition,” she said. “Both are important, and we need to screen for both, but it is difficult to directly compare the two conditions because the different definitions of FH get in the way.”

Dr. Morris agrees with Dr. Nordestgaard that raised levels of Lp(a) may actually be more important for the population risk of cardiovascular disease than FH, as the prevalence of increased Lp(a) levels is higher.

“Because raised Lp(a) levels are more prevalent than confirmed FH, the risk to the population is greater,” she said.  

Dr. Morris points out that cardiovascular risk starts to increase at Lp(a) levels of 30 mg/dL (75 nmol/L).

The editorialists recommend that “in addition to performing a lipid panel periodically according to evidence-based guidelines, measurement of Lp(a) levels should also be performed at least once in an individual’s lifetime for ASCVD risk assessment.”

They conclude that “it is vital to continue to raise awareness among clinicians and patients of these high-risk genetic lipid disorders. Our understanding of both disorders is rapidly expanding, and promising novel therapeutics may offer hope for prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with elevated Lp(a) levels in the future.”

This work was supported by Copenhagen University Hospital – Herlev Gentofte, Denmark, and the Danish Beckett-Foundation. The Copenhagen General Population Study is supported by the Copenhagen County Foundation and Copenhagen University Hospital – Herlev Gentofte. Dr. Nordestgaard has been a consultant and a speaker for AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Regeneron, Akcea, Amgen, Kowa, Denka, Amarin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Silence Therapeutics, Abbott, and Esperion.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

Persistent asthma is associated with increased carotid plaque burden and higher levels of inflammation, putting these patients at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events, new research suggests.

Using data from the MESA study, investigators analyzed more than 5,000 individuals, comparing carotid plaque and inflammatory markers in those with and without asthma.

They found that carotid plaque was present in half of participants without asthma and half of those with intermittent asthma but in close to 70% of participants with persistent asthma.

Moreover, those with persistent asthma had higher interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels, compared with those without asthma or those with intermittent asthma.

“The take-home message is that the current study, paired with prior studies, highlights that individuals with more significant forms of asthma may be at higher cardiovascular risk and makes it imperative to address modifiable risk factors among patients with asthma,” lead author Matthew Tattersall, DO, MS, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, told this news organization.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Limited data

Asthma and ASCVD are “highly prevalent inflammatory diseases,” the authors write. Carotid artery plaque detected by B-mode ultrasound “represents advanced, typically subclinical atherosclerosis that is a strong independent predictor of incident ASCVD events,” with inflammation playing a “key role” in precipitating these events, they note.

Serum inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and IL-6 are associated with increased ASCVD events, and in asthma, CRP and other inflammatory biomarkers are elevated and tend to further increase during exacerbations.

Currently, there are limited data looking at the associations of asthma, asthma severity, and atherosclerotic plaque burden, they note, so the researchers turned to the MESA study – a multiethnic population of individuals free of prevalent ASCVD at baseline. They hypothesized that persistent asthma would be associated with higher carotid plaque presence and burden.

They also wanted to explore “whether these associations would be attenuated after adjustment for baseline inflammatory biomarkers.”

Dr. Tattersall said the current study “links our previous work studying the manifestations of asthma,” in which he and his colleagues demonstrated increased cardiovascular events among MESA participants with persistent asthma, as well as late-onset asthma participants in the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort. His group also showed that early arterial injury occurs in adolescents with asthma. 

However, there are also few data looking at the association with carotid plaque, “a late manifestation of arterial injury and a strong predictor of future cardiovascular events and asthma,” Dr. Tattersall added.

He and his group therefore “wanted to explore the entire spectrum of arterial injury, from the initial increase in the carotid media thickness to plaque formation to cardiovascular events.”

To do so, they studied participants in MESA, a study of close to 7,000 adults that began in the year 2000 and continues to follow participants today. At the time of enrollment, all were free from CVD.

The current analysis looked at 5,029 MESA participants (mean age 61.6 years, 53% female, 26% Black, 23% Hispanic, 12% Asian), comparing those with persistent asthma, defined as “asthma requiring use of controller medications,” intermittent asthma, defined as “asthma without controller medications,” and no asthma.

Participants underwent B-mode carotid ultrasound to detect carotid plaques, with a total plaque score (TPS) ranging from 0-12. The researchers used multivariable regression modeling to evaluate the association of asthma subtype and carotid plaque burden.
 

Interpret cautiously

Participants with persistent asthma were more likely to be female, have higher body mass index (BMI), and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, compared with those without asthma.

Participants with persistent asthma had the highest burden of carotid plaque (P ≤ .003 for comparison of proportions and .002 for comparison of means).

Heightened awareness

Robert Brook, MD, professor and director of cardiovascular disease prevention, Wayne State University, Detroit, said the “main contribution of this study is the novel demonstration of a significant association between persistent (but not intermittent) asthma with carotid atherosclerosis in the MESA cohort, a large multi-ethnic population.”

These findings “support the biological plausibility of the growing epidemiological evidence that asthma independently increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” added Dr. Brook, who was not involved with the study.

“The main take-home message for clinicians is that, just like in COPD (which is well-established), asthma is often a systemic condition in that the inflammation and disease process can impact the whole body,” he said.

“Health care providers should have a heightened awareness of the potentially increased cardiovascular risk of their patients with asthma and pay special attention to controlling their heart disease risk factors (for example, hyperlipidemia, hypertension),” Dr. Brook stated.

Dr. Tattersall was supported by an American Heart Association Career Development Award. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Tattersall and co-authors and Dr. Brook declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

Persistent asthma is associated with increased carotid plaque burden and higher levels of inflammation, putting these patients at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events, new research suggests.

Using data from the MESA study, investigators analyzed more than 5,000 individuals, comparing carotid plaque and inflammatory markers in those with and without asthma.

They found that carotid plaque was present in half of participants without asthma and half of those with intermittent asthma but in close to 70% of participants with persistent asthma.

Moreover, those with persistent asthma had higher interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels, compared with those without asthma or those with intermittent asthma.

“The take-home message is that the current study, paired with prior studies, highlights that individuals with more significant forms of asthma may be at higher cardiovascular risk and makes it imperative to address modifiable risk factors among patients with asthma,” lead author Matthew Tattersall, DO, MS, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, told this news organization.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Limited data

Asthma and ASCVD are “highly prevalent inflammatory diseases,” the authors write. Carotid artery plaque detected by B-mode ultrasound “represents advanced, typically subclinical atherosclerosis that is a strong independent predictor of incident ASCVD events,” with inflammation playing a “key role” in precipitating these events, they note.

Serum inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and IL-6 are associated with increased ASCVD events, and in asthma, CRP and other inflammatory biomarkers are elevated and tend to further increase during exacerbations.

Currently, there are limited data looking at the associations of asthma, asthma severity, and atherosclerotic plaque burden, they note, so the researchers turned to the MESA study – a multiethnic population of individuals free of prevalent ASCVD at baseline. They hypothesized that persistent asthma would be associated with higher carotid plaque presence and burden.

They also wanted to explore “whether these associations would be attenuated after adjustment for baseline inflammatory biomarkers.”

Dr. Tattersall said the current study “links our previous work studying the manifestations of asthma,” in which he and his colleagues demonstrated increased cardiovascular events among MESA participants with persistent asthma, as well as late-onset asthma participants in the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort. His group also showed that early arterial injury occurs in adolescents with asthma. 

However, there are also few data looking at the association with carotid plaque, “a late manifestation of arterial injury and a strong predictor of future cardiovascular events and asthma,” Dr. Tattersall added.

He and his group therefore “wanted to explore the entire spectrum of arterial injury, from the initial increase in the carotid media thickness to plaque formation to cardiovascular events.”

To do so, they studied participants in MESA, a study of close to 7,000 adults that began in the year 2000 and continues to follow participants today. At the time of enrollment, all were free from CVD.

The current analysis looked at 5,029 MESA participants (mean age 61.6 years, 53% female, 26% Black, 23% Hispanic, 12% Asian), comparing those with persistent asthma, defined as “asthma requiring use of controller medications,” intermittent asthma, defined as “asthma without controller medications,” and no asthma.

Participants underwent B-mode carotid ultrasound to detect carotid plaques, with a total plaque score (TPS) ranging from 0-12. The researchers used multivariable regression modeling to evaluate the association of asthma subtype and carotid plaque burden.
 

Interpret cautiously

Participants with persistent asthma were more likely to be female, have higher body mass index (BMI), and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, compared with those without asthma.

Participants with persistent asthma had the highest burden of carotid plaque (P ≤ .003 for comparison of proportions and .002 for comparison of means).

Heightened awareness

Robert Brook, MD, professor and director of cardiovascular disease prevention, Wayne State University, Detroit, said the “main contribution of this study is the novel demonstration of a significant association between persistent (but not intermittent) asthma with carotid atherosclerosis in the MESA cohort, a large multi-ethnic population.”

These findings “support the biological plausibility of the growing epidemiological evidence that asthma independently increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” added Dr. Brook, who was not involved with the study.

“The main take-home message for clinicians is that, just like in COPD (which is well-established), asthma is often a systemic condition in that the inflammation and disease process can impact the whole body,” he said.

“Health care providers should have a heightened awareness of the potentially increased cardiovascular risk of their patients with asthma and pay special attention to controlling their heart disease risk factors (for example, hyperlipidemia, hypertension),” Dr. Brook stated.

Dr. Tattersall was supported by an American Heart Association Career Development Award. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Tattersall and co-authors and Dr. Brook declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

Persistent asthma is associated with increased carotid plaque burden and higher levels of inflammation, putting these patients at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events, new research suggests.

Using data from the MESA study, investigators analyzed more than 5,000 individuals, comparing carotid plaque and inflammatory markers in those with and without asthma.

They found that carotid plaque was present in half of participants without asthma and half of those with intermittent asthma but in close to 70% of participants with persistent asthma.

Moreover, those with persistent asthma had higher interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels, compared with those without asthma or those with intermittent asthma.

“The take-home message is that the current study, paired with prior studies, highlights that individuals with more significant forms of asthma may be at higher cardiovascular risk and makes it imperative to address modifiable risk factors among patients with asthma,” lead author Matthew Tattersall, DO, MS, assistant professor of cardiovascular medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, told this news organization.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

Limited data

Asthma and ASCVD are “highly prevalent inflammatory diseases,” the authors write. Carotid artery plaque detected by B-mode ultrasound “represents advanced, typically subclinical atherosclerosis that is a strong independent predictor of incident ASCVD events,” with inflammation playing a “key role” in precipitating these events, they note.

Serum inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and IL-6 are associated with increased ASCVD events, and in asthma, CRP and other inflammatory biomarkers are elevated and tend to further increase during exacerbations.

Currently, there are limited data looking at the associations of asthma, asthma severity, and atherosclerotic plaque burden, they note, so the researchers turned to the MESA study – a multiethnic population of individuals free of prevalent ASCVD at baseline. They hypothesized that persistent asthma would be associated with higher carotid plaque presence and burden.

They also wanted to explore “whether these associations would be attenuated after adjustment for baseline inflammatory biomarkers.”

Dr. Tattersall said the current study “links our previous work studying the manifestations of asthma,” in which he and his colleagues demonstrated increased cardiovascular events among MESA participants with persistent asthma, as well as late-onset asthma participants in the Wisconsin Sleep Cohort. His group also showed that early arterial injury occurs in adolescents with asthma. 

However, there are also few data looking at the association with carotid plaque, “a late manifestation of arterial injury and a strong predictor of future cardiovascular events and asthma,” Dr. Tattersall added.

He and his group therefore “wanted to explore the entire spectrum of arterial injury, from the initial increase in the carotid media thickness to plaque formation to cardiovascular events.”

To do so, they studied participants in MESA, a study of close to 7,000 adults that began in the year 2000 and continues to follow participants today. At the time of enrollment, all were free from CVD.

The current analysis looked at 5,029 MESA participants (mean age 61.6 years, 53% female, 26% Black, 23% Hispanic, 12% Asian), comparing those with persistent asthma, defined as “asthma requiring use of controller medications,” intermittent asthma, defined as “asthma without controller medications,” and no asthma.

Participants underwent B-mode carotid ultrasound to detect carotid plaques, with a total plaque score (TPS) ranging from 0-12. The researchers used multivariable regression modeling to evaluate the association of asthma subtype and carotid plaque burden.
 

Interpret cautiously

Participants with persistent asthma were more likely to be female, have higher body mass index (BMI), and higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, compared with those without asthma.

Participants with persistent asthma had the highest burden of carotid plaque (P ≤ .003 for comparison of proportions and .002 for comparison of means).

Heightened awareness

Robert Brook, MD, professor and director of cardiovascular disease prevention, Wayne State University, Detroit, said the “main contribution of this study is the novel demonstration of a significant association between persistent (but not intermittent) asthma with carotid atherosclerosis in the MESA cohort, a large multi-ethnic population.”

These findings “support the biological plausibility of the growing epidemiological evidence that asthma independently increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” added Dr. Brook, who was not involved with the study.

“The main take-home message for clinicians is that, just like in COPD (which is well-established), asthma is often a systemic condition in that the inflammation and disease process can impact the whole body,” he said.

“Health care providers should have a heightened awareness of the potentially increased cardiovascular risk of their patients with asthma and pay special attention to controlling their heart disease risk factors (for example, hyperlipidemia, hypertension),” Dr. Brook stated.

Dr. Tattersall was supported by an American Heart Association Career Development Award. The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Research Resources. Dr. Tattersall and co-authors and Dr. Brook declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

You can get all the exercise you need in just 8 minutes a day if you work out a bit harder, according to a new study in the European Heart Journal.

Just 54 minutes of vigorous exercise per week provides the most bang for your buck, researchers found, lowering the risk of early death from any cause by 36%, and your chances of getting heart disease by 35%.

Scientists examined data from fitness trackers worn by more than 71,000 people studied in the United Kingdom, then analyzed their health over the next several years.

While more time spent exercising unsurprisingly led to better health, the protective effects of exercise start to plateau after a certain point, according to the study.

A tough, short workout improves blood pressure, shrinks artery-clogging plaques, and boosts your overall fitness.

Vigorous exercise helps your body adapt better than moderate exercise does, leading to more notable benefits, says study author Matthew Ahmadi, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Sydney.

“Collectively, these will lower a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease. Exercise can also lower body inflammation, which will in turn lower the risk for certain cancers,” he says.

The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of “moderate intensity” exercise each week, such as walking at a brisk pace. Or you could spend 75 minutes each week doing vigorous exercise, like running, it says. The CDC also recommends muscle strengthening activities, like lifting weights, at least 2 days per week.

But only 54% of Americans actually manage to get their 150 minutes of aerobic activity in each week, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Even fewer – just 24% – also squeeze in the two recommended strength workouts.

So 8 minutes a day instead of 30 minutes could persuade busy people to get the exercise they need.

“Lack of time is one of the main reasons people have reported for not engaging in exercise,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

Vigorous exercise doesn’t mean you have to run, bike, or lift weights. Scientists consider a physical activity “vigorous” if it’s greater than 6 times your resting metabolic rate, or MET. That includes all kinds of strenuous movement, including dancing in a nightclub or carrying groceries upstairs.

“All of these activities are equally beneficial,” says Dr. Ahmadi.

He recommends aiming for 2-minute bouts of a heart-pumping activity, spread throughout the day for the most benefit in the least amount of time. If you wear a smartwatch or other device that tracks your heart rate, you’ll be above the threshold if your heart is pumping at 77% or more of your max heart rate (which most fitness trackers help you calculate).

No smartwatch? “The easiest way a person can infer if they are doing vigorous activity is if they are breathing hard enough that it’s difficult to have a conversation or speak in a full sentence while doing the activity,” Dr. Ahmadi says. In other words, if you’re huffing and puffing, then you’re in the zone.

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

Vitamin D supplements do not prevent muscle symptoms in new statin users or affect the likelihood of discontinuing a statin due to muscle pain and discomfort, a substudy of the VITAL trial indicates.

Among more than 2,000 randomized participants, statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) were reported by 31% assigned to vitamin D and 31% assigned to placebo.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The two groups were equally likely to stop taking a statin due to muscle symptoms, at 13%.

No significant difference was observed in SAMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.18) or statin discontinuations (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35) after adjustment for baseline variables and other characteristics, namely age, sex, and African-American race, previously found to be associated with SAMS in VITAL.

“We actually thought when we started out that maybe we were going to show something, that maybe it was going to be that the people who got the vitamin D were least likely to have a problem with a statin than all those who didn’t get vitamin D, but that is not what we showed,” senior author Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

He noted that patients in the clinic with low levels of vitamin D often have muscle pain and discomfort and that previous unblinded studies suggested vitamin D might benefit patients with SAMS and reduce statin intolerance.

As previously reported, the double-blind VITAL trial showed no difference in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer at 5 years among 25,871 middle-aged adults randomized to vitamin D3 at 2000 IU/d or placebo, regardless of their baseline vitamin D level.

Unlike previous studies showing a benefit with vitamin D on SAMS, importantly, VITAL participants were unaware of whether they were taking vitamin D or placebo and were not expecting any help with their muscle symptoms, first author Mark A. Hlatky, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, pointed out in an interview.

As to how many statin users turn to the popular supplement for SAMS, he said that number couldn’t be pinned down, despite a lengthy search. “But I think it’s very common, because up to half of people stop taking their statins within a year and many of these do so because of statin-associated muscle symptoms, and we found it in about 30% of people who have them. I have them myself and was motivated to study it because I thought this was an interesting question.”

The results were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

SAMS by baseline 25-OHD

The substudy included 2,083 patients who initiated statin therapy after randomization and were surveyed in early 2016 about their statin use and muscle symptoms.

Two-thirds, or 1,397 patients, had 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25-OHD) measured at baseline, with 47% having levels < 30 ng/mL and 13% levels < 20 ng/mL.

Serum 25-OHD levels were virtually identical in the two treatment groups (mean, 30.4 ng/mL; median, 30.0 ng/mL). The frequency of SAMS did not differ between those assigned to vitamin D or placebo (28% vs. 31%).

The odds ratios for the association with vitamin D on SAMS were:

• 0.86 in all respondents with 25-OHD measured (95% CI, 0.69-1.09).
• 0.87 in those with levels ≥ 30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.64-1.19).
• 0.85 with levels of 20-30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.56-1.28).
• 0.93 with levels < 20 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.50-1.74).

The test for treatment effect modification by baseline serum 25-OHD level was not significant (P for interaction = .83).

In addition, the rate of muscle symptoms was similar between participants randomized to vitamin D and placebo when researchers used a cutpoint to define low 25-OHD of < 30 ng/mL (27% vs. 30%) or < 20 ng/mL (33% vs. 35%).

“We didn’t find any evidence at all that the people who came into the study with low levels of vitamin D did better with the supplement in this case,” Dr. Hlatky said. “So that wasn’t the reason we didn’t see anything.”

Critics may suggest the trial didn’t use a high enough dose of vitamin D, but both Dr. Hlatky and Dr. Stone say that’s unlikely to be a factor in the results because 2,000 IU/d is a substantial dose and well above the recommended adult daily dose of 600-800 IU.

They caution that the substudy wasn’t prespecified, was smaller than the parent trial, and did not have a protocol in place to detail SAMS. They also can’t rule out the possibility that vitamin D may have an effect in patients who have confirmed intolerance to multiple statins, especially after adjustment for the statin type and dose.

“If you’re taking vitamin D to keep from having statin-associated muscle symptoms, this very carefully done substudy with the various caveats doesn’t support that and that’s not something I would give my patients,” Dr. Stone said.

“The most important thing from a negative study is that it allows you to focus your attention on things that may be much more productive rather than assuming that just giving everybody vitamin D will take care of the statin issue,” he added. “Maybe the answer is going to be somewhere else, and there’ll be a lot of people I’m sure who will offer their advice as what the answer is but, I would argue, we want to see more studies to pin it down. So people can get some science behind what they do to try to reduce statin-associated muscle symptoms.”

Paul D. Thompson, MD, chief of cardiology emeritus at Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and a SAMS expert who was not involved with the research, said, “This is a useful publication, and it’s smart in that it took advantage of a study that was already done.”

He acknowledged being skeptical of a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on SAMS, because some previous data have been retracted, but said that potential treatments are best tested in patients with confirmed statin myalgia, as was the case in his team’s negative trial of CoQ10 supplementation.

That said, the present “study was able to at least give some of the best evidence so far that vitamin D doesn’t do anything to improve symptoms,” Dr. Thompson said. “So maybe it will cut down on so many vitamin D levels [being measured] and use of vitamin D when you don’t really need it.”

The study was sponsored by the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern University. The VITAL trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, and Quest Diagnostics performed the laboratory measurements at no additional costs. Dr. Hlatky reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stone reports a grant from the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern and honorarium for educational activity for Knowledge to Practice. Dr. Thompson is on the executive committee for a study examining bempedoic acid in patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms.

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

Vitamin D supplements do not prevent muscle symptoms in new statin users or affect the likelihood of discontinuing a statin due to muscle pain and discomfort, a substudy of the VITAL trial indicates.

Among more than 2,000 randomized participants, statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) were reported by 31% assigned to vitamin D and 31% assigned to placebo.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The two groups were equally likely to stop taking a statin due to muscle symptoms, at 13%.

No significant difference was observed in SAMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.18) or statin discontinuations (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35) after adjustment for baseline variables and other characteristics, namely age, sex, and African-American race, previously found to be associated with SAMS in VITAL.

“We actually thought when we started out that maybe we were going to show something, that maybe it was going to be that the people who got the vitamin D were least likely to have a problem with a statin than all those who didn’t get vitamin D, but that is not what we showed,” senior author Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

He noted that patients in the clinic with low levels of vitamin D often have muscle pain and discomfort and that previous unblinded studies suggested vitamin D might benefit patients with SAMS and reduce statin intolerance.

As previously reported, the double-blind VITAL trial showed no difference in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer at 5 years among 25,871 middle-aged adults randomized to vitamin D3 at 2000 IU/d or placebo, regardless of their baseline vitamin D level.

Unlike previous studies showing a benefit with vitamin D on SAMS, importantly, VITAL participants were unaware of whether they were taking vitamin D or placebo and were not expecting any help with their muscle symptoms, first author Mark A. Hlatky, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, pointed out in an interview.

As to how many statin users turn to the popular supplement for SAMS, he said that number couldn’t be pinned down, despite a lengthy search. “But I think it’s very common, because up to half of people stop taking their statins within a year and many of these do so because of statin-associated muscle symptoms, and we found it in about 30% of people who have them. I have them myself and was motivated to study it because I thought this was an interesting question.”

The results were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

SAMS by baseline 25-OHD

The substudy included 2,083 patients who initiated statin therapy after randomization and were surveyed in early 2016 about their statin use and muscle symptoms.

Two-thirds, or 1,397 patients, had 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25-OHD) measured at baseline, with 47% having levels < 30 ng/mL and 13% levels < 20 ng/mL.

Serum 25-OHD levels were virtually identical in the two treatment groups (mean, 30.4 ng/mL; median, 30.0 ng/mL). The frequency of SAMS did not differ between those assigned to vitamin D or placebo (28% vs. 31%).

The odds ratios for the association with vitamin D on SAMS were:

• 0.86 in all respondents with 25-OHD measured (95% CI, 0.69-1.09).
• 0.87 in those with levels ≥ 30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.64-1.19).
• 0.85 with levels of 20-30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.56-1.28).
• 0.93 with levels < 20 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.50-1.74).

The test for treatment effect modification by baseline serum 25-OHD level was not significant (P for interaction = .83).

In addition, the rate of muscle symptoms was similar between participants randomized to vitamin D and placebo when researchers used a cutpoint to define low 25-OHD of < 30 ng/mL (27% vs. 30%) or < 20 ng/mL (33% vs. 35%).

“We didn’t find any evidence at all that the people who came into the study with low levels of vitamin D did better with the supplement in this case,” Dr. Hlatky said. “So that wasn’t the reason we didn’t see anything.”

Critics may suggest the trial didn’t use a high enough dose of vitamin D, but both Dr. Hlatky and Dr. Stone say that’s unlikely to be a factor in the results because 2,000 IU/d is a substantial dose and well above the recommended adult daily dose of 600-800 IU.

They caution that the substudy wasn’t prespecified, was smaller than the parent trial, and did not have a protocol in place to detail SAMS. They also can’t rule out the possibility that vitamin D may have an effect in patients who have confirmed intolerance to multiple statins, especially after adjustment for the statin type and dose.

“If you’re taking vitamin D to keep from having statin-associated muscle symptoms, this very carefully done substudy with the various caveats doesn’t support that and that’s not something I would give my patients,” Dr. Stone said.

“The most important thing from a negative study is that it allows you to focus your attention on things that may be much more productive rather than assuming that just giving everybody vitamin D will take care of the statin issue,” he added. “Maybe the answer is going to be somewhere else, and there’ll be a lot of people I’m sure who will offer their advice as what the answer is but, I would argue, we want to see more studies to pin it down. So people can get some science behind what they do to try to reduce statin-associated muscle symptoms.”

Paul D. Thompson, MD, chief of cardiology emeritus at Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and a SAMS expert who was not involved with the research, said, “This is a useful publication, and it’s smart in that it took advantage of a study that was already done.”

He acknowledged being skeptical of a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on SAMS, because some previous data have been retracted, but said that potential treatments are best tested in patients with confirmed statin myalgia, as was the case in his team’s negative trial of CoQ10 supplementation.

That said, the present “study was able to at least give some of the best evidence so far that vitamin D doesn’t do anything to improve symptoms,” Dr. Thompson said. “So maybe it will cut down on so many vitamin D levels [being measured] and use of vitamin D when you don’t really need it.”

The study was sponsored by the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern University. The VITAL trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, and Quest Diagnostics performed the laboratory measurements at no additional costs. Dr. Hlatky reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stone reports a grant from the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern and honorarium for educational activity for Knowledge to Practice. Dr. Thompson is on the executive committee for a study examining bempedoic acid in patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms.

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

Vitamin D supplements do not prevent muscle symptoms in new statin users or affect the likelihood of discontinuing a statin due to muscle pain and discomfort, a substudy of the VITAL trial indicates.

Among more than 2,000 randomized participants, statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) were reported by 31% assigned to vitamin D and 31% assigned to placebo.

copyright Joss/Fotolia.com

The two groups were equally likely to stop taking a statin due to muscle symptoms, at 13%.

No significant difference was observed in SAMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.18) or statin discontinuations (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35) after adjustment for baseline variables and other characteristics, namely age, sex, and African-American race, previously found to be associated with SAMS in VITAL.

“We actually thought when we started out that maybe we were going to show something, that maybe it was going to be that the people who got the vitamin D were least likely to have a problem with a statin than all those who didn’t get vitamin D, but that is not what we showed,” senior author Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization.

He noted that patients in the clinic with low levels of vitamin D often have muscle pain and discomfort and that previous unblinded studies suggested vitamin D might benefit patients with SAMS and reduce statin intolerance.

As previously reported, the double-blind VITAL trial showed no difference in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease or cancer at 5 years among 25,871 middle-aged adults randomized to vitamin D3 at 2000 IU/d or placebo, regardless of their baseline vitamin D level.

Unlike previous studies showing a benefit with vitamin D on SAMS, importantly, VITAL participants were unaware of whether they were taking vitamin D or placebo and were not expecting any help with their muscle symptoms, first author Mark A. Hlatky, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, pointed out in an interview.

As to how many statin users turn to the popular supplement for SAMS, he said that number couldn’t be pinned down, despite a lengthy search. “But I think it’s very common, because up to half of people stop taking their statins within a year and many of these do so because of statin-associated muscle symptoms, and we found it in about 30% of people who have them. I have them myself and was motivated to study it because I thought this was an interesting question.”

The results were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

SAMS by baseline 25-OHD

The substudy included 2,083 patients who initiated statin therapy after randomization and were surveyed in early 2016 about their statin use and muscle symptoms.

Two-thirds, or 1,397 patients, had 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25-OHD) measured at baseline, with 47% having levels < 30 ng/mL and 13% levels < 20 ng/mL.

Serum 25-OHD levels were virtually identical in the two treatment groups (mean, 30.4 ng/mL; median, 30.0 ng/mL). The frequency of SAMS did not differ between those assigned to vitamin D or placebo (28% vs. 31%).

The odds ratios for the association with vitamin D on SAMS were:

• 0.86 in all respondents with 25-OHD measured (95% CI, 0.69-1.09).
• 0.87 in those with levels ≥ 30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.64-1.19).
• 0.85 with levels of 20-30 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.56-1.28).
• 0.93 with levels < 20 ng/mL (95% CI, 0.50-1.74).

The test for treatment effect modification by baseline serum 25-OHD level was not significant (P for interaction = .83).

In addition, the rate of muscle symptoms was similar between participants randomized to vitamin D and placebo when researchers used a cutpoint to define low 25-OHD of < 30 ng/mL (27% vs. 30%) or < 20 ng/mL (33% vs. 35%).

“We didn’t find any evidence at all that the people who came into the study with low levels of vitamin D did better with the supplement in this case,” Dr. Hlatky said. “So that wasn’t the reason we didn’t see anything.”

Critics may suggest the trial didn’t use a high enough dose of vitamin D, but both Dr. Hlatky and Dr. Stone say that’s unlikely to be a factor in the results because 2,000 IU/d is a substantial dose and well above the recommended adult daily dose of 600-800 IU.

They caution that the substudy wasn’t prespecified, was smaller than the parent trial, and did not have a protocol in place to detail SAMS. They also can’t rule out the possibility that vitamin D may have an effect in patients who have confirmed intolerance to multiple statins, especially after adjustment for the statin type and dose.

“If you’re taking vitamin D to keep from having statin-associated muscle symptoms, this very carefully done substudy with the various caveats doesn’t support that and that’s not something I would give my patients,” Dr. Stone said.

“The most important thing from a negative study is that it allows you to focus your attention on things that may be much more productive rather than assuming that just giving everybody vitamin D will take care of the statin issue,” he added. “Maybe the answer is going to be somewhere else, and there’ll be a lot of people I’m sure who will offer their advice as what the answer is but, I would argue, we want to see more studies to pin it down. So people can get some science behind what they do to try to reduce statin-associated muscle symptoms.”

Paul D. Thompson, MD, chief of cardiology emeritus at Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, and a SAMS expert who was not involved with the research, said, “This is a useful publication, and it’s smart in that it took advantage of a study that was already done.”

He acknowledged being skeptical of a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation on SAMS, because some previous data have been retracted, but said that potential treatments are best tested in patients with confirmed statin myalgia, as was the case in his team’s negative trial of CoQ10 supplementation.

That said, the present “study was able to at least give some of the best evidence so far that vitamin D doesn’t do anything to improve symptoms,” Dr. Thompson said. “So maybe it will cut down on so many vitamin D levels [being measured] and use of vitamin D when you don’t really need it.”

The study was sponsored by the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern University. The VITAL trial was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, and Quest Diagnostics performed the laboratory measurements at no additional costs. Dr. Hlatky reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stone reports a grant from the Hyperlipidemia Research Fund at Northwestern and honorarium for educational activity for Knowledge to Practice. Dr. Thompson is on the executive committee for a study examining bempedoic acid in patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms.

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

Major cardiovascular societies are more apt to give out awards to men and White individuals than to women and minorities, according to a look at 2 decades’ worth of data.

“Women received significantly fewer awards than men in all societies, countries, and award categories,” author Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release. “This bias may be responsible for preventing underrepresented groups from ascending the academic ladder and receiving senior awards like lifetime achievement awards.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A slow climb

The findings are based on a review of honors given from 2000 to 2021 by the ACC, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

Among the 173 unique awards, 94 were given by the AHA, 27 by the HRS, 17 by the ACC, 16 by the CCS, 8 by the ASE, 7 by the ESC, and 4 by the SCAI. There were 3,044 recipients of these awards, including 2,830 unique awardees.

The vast majority of the awardees were White (75.2%), with Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Black awardees representing just 18.9%, 4.5%, and 1.4% of the total awardees, respectively.

In a gender analysis, the researchers looked at 169 awards after excluding female-specific awards. These 169 awards were distributed to 2,995 recipients. More than three-quarters of these awardees (76.2%) were men, with women making up less than one-quarter (23.8%).

Encouragingly, there was an increasing trend in recognition of women over time, with 7.7% of female awardees in 2000 and climbing to 31.2% in 2021 (average annual percentage change, 6.6%; P < .05).

The distribution of awards also became more racially/ethnically diverse over time; in 2000, 92.3% of awardees were White versus 62.8% in 2021 (AAPC, –1.4%; P < .001).

There was also a significant increase in Asian (AAPC, 5.7%; P < .001), Hispanic/Latino (AAPC, 4.8%; P = .040), and Black (AAPC, 7.8%; P < .05) honorees.
 

Core influencers

By award type, women received fewer leadership awards than men, “which can be attributed to fewer leadership opportunities for women and a lack of acknowledgment of leadership responsibilities fulfilled by women,” the researchers said.

Award recipients with a PhD degree were nearly gender balanced (48.2% women), whereas men formed an overwhelming majority of awardees with an MD (84.7%).

Awards with male eponyms had fewer women recipients than did noneponymous awards (20.9% vs. 23.2%; P < .01).

“Male-eponymous awards can deter women applicants and give a subtle hint to selection committees to favor men as winners, creating an implicit bias,” the researchers said.

“Given the increased emphasis on redesigning cardiovascular health care delivery by incorporating the tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), cardiovascular societies have a significant role as core influencers,” Dr. Gulati and colleagues wrote.

They said that equitable award distribution can be a “key strategy to celebrate women and diverse members of the cardiovascular workforce and promulgate DEI.”

“Recognition of their contributions is pivotal to enhancing their self-perception. In addition to boosting confidence, receiving an award can also catalyze their career trajectory,” the authors added.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Major cardiovascular societies are more apt to give out awards to men and White individuals than to women and minorities, according to a look at 2 decades’ worth of data.

“Women received significantly fewer awards than men in all societies, countries, and award categories,” author Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release. “This bias may be responsible for preventing underrepresented groups from ascending the academic ladder and receiving senior awards like lifetime achievement awards.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A slow climb

The findings are based on a review of honors given from 2000 to 2021 by the ACC, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

Among the 173 unique awards, 94 were given by the AHA, 27 by the HRS, 17 by the ACC, 16 by the CCS, 8 by the ASE, 7 by the ESC, and 4 by the SCAI. There were 3,044 recipients of these awards, including 2,830 unique awardees.

The vast majority of the awardees were White (75.2%), with Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Black awardees representing just 18.9%, 4.5%, and 1.4% of the total awardees, respectively.

In a gender analysis, the researchers looked at 169 awards after excluding female-specific awards. These 169 awards were distributed to 2,995 recipients. More than three-quarters of these awardees (76.2%) were men, with women making up less than one-quarter (23.8%).

Encouragingly, there was an increasing trend in recognition of women over time, with 7.7% of female awardees in 2000 and climbing to 31.2% in 2021 (average annual percentage change, 6.6%; P < .05).

The distribution of awards also became more racially/ethnically diverse over time; in 2000, 92.3% of awardees were White versus 62.8% in 2021 (AAPC, –1.4%; P < .001).

There was also a significant increase in Asian (AAPC, 5.7%; P < .001), Hispanic/Latino (AAPC, 4.8%; P = .040), and Black (AAPC, 7.8%; P < .05) honorees.
 

Core influencers

By award type, women received fewer leadership awards than men, “which can be attributed to fewer leadership opportunities for women and a lack of acknowledgment of leadership responsibilities fulfilled by women,” the researchers said.

Award recipients with a PhD degree were nearly gender balanced (48.2% women), whereas men formed an overwhelming majority of awardees with an MD (84.7%).

Awards with male eponyms had fewer women recipients than did noneponymous awards (20.9% vs. 23.2%; P < .01).

“Male-eponymous awards can deter women applicants and give a subtle hint to selection committees to favor men as winners, creating an implicit bias,” the researchers said.

“Given the increased emphasis on redesigning cardiovascular health care delivery by incorporating the tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), cardiovascular societies have a significant role as core influencers,” Dr. Gulati and colleagues wrote.

They said that equitable award distribution can be a “key strategy to celebrate women and diverse members of the cardiovascular workforce and promulgate DEI.”

“Recognition of their contributions is pivotal to enhancing their self-perception. In addition to boosting confidence, receiving an award can also catalyze their career trajectory,” the authors added.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Major cardiovascular societies are more apt to give out awards to men and White individuals than to women and minorities, according to a look at 2 decades’ worth of data.

“Women received significantly fewer awards than men in all societies, countries, and award categories,” author Martha Gulati, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said in a news release. “This bias may be responsible for preventing underrepresented groups from ascending the academic ladder and receiving senior awards like lifetime achievement awards.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A slow climb

The findings are based on a review of honors given from 2000 to 2021 by the ACC, the American Heart Association, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

Among the 173 unique awards, 94 were given by the AHA, 27 by the HRS, 17 by the ACC, 16 by the CCS, 8 by the ASE, 7 by the ESC, and 4 by the SCAI. There were 3,044 recipients of these awards, including 2,830 unique awardees.

The vast majority of the awardees were White (75.2%), with Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Black awardees representing just 18.9%, 4.5%, and 1.4% of the total awardees, respectively.

In a gender analysis, the researchers looked at 169 awards after excluding female-specific awards. These 169 awards were distributed to 2,995 recipients. More than three-quarters of these awardees (76.2%) were men, with women making up less than one-quarter (23.8%).

Encouragingly, there was an increasing trend in recognition of women over time, with 7.7% of female awardees in 2000 and climbing to 31.2% in 2021 (average annual percentage change, 6.6%; P < .05).

The distribution of awards also became more racially/ethnically diverse over time; in 2000, 92.3% of awardees were White versus 62.8% in 2021 (AAPC, –1.4%; P < .001).

There was also a significant increase in Asian (AAPC, 5.7%; P < .001), Hispanic/Latino (AAPC, 4.8%; P = .040), and Black (AAPC, 7.8%; P < .05) honorees.
 

Core influencers

By award type, women received fewer leadership awards than men, “which can be attributed to fewer leadership opportunities for women and a lack of acknowledgment of leadership responsibilities fulfilled by women,” the researchers said.

Award recipients with a PhD degree were nearly gender balanced (48.2% women), whereas men formed an overwhelming majority of awardees with an MD (84.7%).

Awards with male eponyms had fewer women recipients than did noneponymous awards (20.9% vs. 23.2%; P < .01).

“Male-eponymous awards can deter women applicants and give a subtle hint to selection committees to favor men as winners, creating an implicit bias,” the researchers said.

“Given the increased emphasis on redesigning cardiovascular health care delivery by incorporating the tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), cardiovascular societies have a significant role as core influencers,” Dr. Gulati and colleagues wrote.

They said that equitable award distribution can be a “key strategy to celebrate women and diverse members of the cardiovascular workforce and promulgate DEI.”

“Recognition of their contributions is pivotal to enhancing their self-perception. In addition to boosting confidence, receiving an award can also catalyze their career trajectory,” the authors added.

The study had no specific funding. The authors have declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A newly discovered genetic variant that is associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is responsible for almost 7% of all diabetes cases in Greenland, according to a whole-genome sequencing analysis of 448 Greenlandic Inuit individuals.

The variant, identified as c.1108G>T, “has the largest population impact of any previously reported variant” within the HNF1A gene – a gene that can cause maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY), reported senior author Torben Hansen, MD, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe. The c.1108G>T variant does not cause MODY, but other variants within the HNF1A gene do. However, carriers of this variant, which is present in 1.9% of the Greenlandic Inuit population and has not been found elsewhere, have normal insulin sensitivity, but decreased beta-cell function and a more than fourfold risk of developing type 2 diabetes. “This adds to a previous discovery that about 11% of all diabetes in Greenlandic Inuit is explained by a mutation in the TBC1D4 variant,” Dr. Hansen told this publication. “Thus 1 in 5 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in Greenland have a specific mutation explaining their diabetes. In European populations only about 1%-2% of patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes have a known genetic etiology.”

The finding “provides new avenues to subgroup patients, detect diabetes in family members, and pursue precision treatment trials,” noted the authors, although they acknowledged that treatment choices for individuals with this variant still need to be explored. “We know from HNF1A-mutation carriers with European ancestry that they benefit from sulfonylurea treatment,” said Dr. Hansen. “However, we have not yet done treatment studies in Inuit.” The investigators noted that “it is not always the case that variants in HNF1A result in an increased insulin secretory response to sulfonylurea. ... Whether carriers of the c.1108G>T variant could benefit from treatment with sulfonylurea should be pursued within the context of a randomized clinical trial establishing both short- and long-term efficacy of sulfonylurea in these patients.”

A total of 4,497 study participants were randomly sampled from two cross-sectional cohorts in an adult Greenlandic population health survey. Among 448 participants who had whole genome sequencing, 14 known MODY genes were screened for both previously identified as well as novel variants. This identified the c.1108G>T variant, which was then genotyped in the full cohort in order to estimate an allele frequency of 1.3% in the general Greenlandic population, and 1.9% in the Inuit component. The variant was not found in genome sequences of other populations.

The researchers then tested the association of the variant with T2D and showed strong association with T2D (odds ratio, 4.35) and higher hemoglobin A1c levels.

“This is very well-conducted and exciting research that highlights the importance of studying the genetics of diverse populations,” said Miriam Udler, MD, PhD, director of the Massachusetts General Diabetes Genetics Clinic, and assistant professor at Harvard University, both in Boston. “This manuscript builds on prior work from the researchers identifying another genetic variant specific to the Greenlandic Inuit population in the gene TBC1D4,” she added. “About 3.8% of people in this population carry two copies of the TBC1D4 variant and have about a 10-fold increased risk of diabetes. Together the two variants affect 18% of Greenlanders with diabetes.”

With its fourfold increased risk of diabetes, the new variant falls into “an ever-growing category” of “intermediate risk” genetic variants, explained Dr. Udler – “meaning that they have a large impact on diabetes risk, but cannot fully predict whether someone will get diabetes. The contribution of additional risk factors is particularly important for ‘intermediate risk’ genetic variants,” she added. “Thus, clinically, we can tell patients who have variants such as HNF1A c.1108>T that they are at substantial increased risk of diabetes, but that many will not develop diabetes. And for those who do develop diabetes, we are not yet able to advise on particular therapeutic strategies.”

Still, she emphasized, the importance of studying diverse populations with specific genetic risk factors is the end-goal of precision medicine. “An active area of research is determining whether and how to return such information about ‘intermediate risk’ variants to patients who get clinical genetic testing for diabetes, since typically only variants that are very high risk ... are returned in clinical testing reports.” Dr. Udler added that “many more such “intermediate risk’ variants likely exist in all populations, but have yet to be characterized because they are less common than HNF1A c.1108>T; however, ongoing worldwide efforts to increase the sample sizes of human genetic studies will facilitate such discovery.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Independent Research Fund Denmark, and Karen Elise Jensen’s Foundation. Dr. Hansen and Dr. Udler had no disclosures.
 

A newly discovered genetic variant that is associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is responsible for almost 7% of all diabetes cases in Greenland, according to a whole-genome sequencing analysis of 448 Greenlandic Inuit individuals.

The variant, identified as c.1108G>T, “has the largest population impact of any previously reported variant” within the HNF1A gene – a gene that can cause maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY), reported senior author Torben Hansen, MD, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe. The c.1108G>T variant does not cause MODY, but other variants within the HNF1A gene do. However, carriers of this variant, which is present in 1.9% of the Greenlandic Inuit population and has not been found elsewhere, have normal insulin sensitivity, but decreased beta-cell function and a more than fourfold risk of developing type 2 diabetes. “This adds to a previous discovery that about 11% of all diabetes in Greenlandic Inuit is explained by a mutation in the TBC1D4 variant,” Dr. Hansen told this publication. “Thus 1 in 5 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in Greenland have a specific mutation explaining their diabetes. In European populations only about 1%-2% of patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes have a known genetic etiology.”

The finding “provides new avenues to subgroup patients, detect diabetes in family members, and pursue precision treatment trials,” noted the authors, although they acknowledged that treatment choices for individuals with this variant still need to be explored. “We know from HNF1A-mutation carriers with European ancestry that they benefit from sulfonylurea treatment,” said Dr. Hansen. “However, we have not yet done treatment studies in Inuit.” The investigators noted that “it is not always the case that variants in HNF1A result in an increased insulin secretory response to sulfonylurea. ... Whether carriers of the c.1108G>T variant could benefit from treatment with sulfonylurea should be pursued within the context of a randomized clinical trial establishing both short- and long-term efficacy of sulfonylurea in these patients.”

A total of 4,497 study participants were randomly sampled from two cross-sectional cohorts in an adult Greenlandic population health survey. Among 448 participants who had whole genome sequencing, 14 known MODY genes were screened for both previously identified as well as novel variants. This identified the c.1108G>T variant, which was then genotyped in the full cohort in order to estimate an allele frequency of 1.3% in the general Greenlandic population, and 1.9% in the Inuit component. The variant was not found in genome sequences of other populations.

The researchers then tested the association of the variant with T2D and showed strong association with T2D (odds ratio, 4.35) and higher hemoglobin A1c levels.

“This is very well-conducted and exciting research that highlights the importance of studying the genetics of diverse populations,” said Miriam Udler, MD, PhD, director of the Massachusetts General Diabetes Genetics Clinic, and assistant professor at Harvard University, both in Boston. “This manuscript builds on prior work from the researchers identifying another genetic variant specific to the Greenlandic Inuit population in the gene TBC1D4,” she added. “About 3.8% of people in this population carry two copies of the TBC1D4 variant and have about a 10-fold increased risk of diabetes. Together the two variants affect 18% of Greenlanders with diabetes.”

With its fourfold increased risk of diabetes, the new variant falls into “an ever-growing category” of “intermediate risk” genetic variants, explained Dr. Udler – “meaning that they have a large impact on diabetes risk, but cannot fully predict whether someone will get diabetes. The contribution of additional risk factors is particularly important for ‘intermediate risk’ genetic variants,” she added. “Thus, clinically, we can tell patients who have variants such as HNF1A c.1108>T that they are at substantial increased risk of diabetes, but that many will not develop diabetes. And for those who do develop diabetes, we are not yet able to advise on particular therapeutic strategies.”

Still, she emphasized, the importance of studying diverse populations with specific genetic risk factors is the end-goal of precision medicine. “An active area of research is determining whether and how to return such information about ‘intermediate risk’ variants to patients who get clinical genetic testing for diabetes, since typically only variants that are very high risk ... are returned in clinical testing reports.” Dr. Udler added that “many more such “intermediate risk’ variants likely exist in all populations, but have yet to be characterized because they are less common than HNF1A c.1108>T; however, ongoing worldwide efforts to increase the sample sizes of human genetic studies will facilitate such discovery.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Independent Research Fund Denmark, and Karen Elise Jensen’s Foundation. Dr. Hansen and Dr. Udler had no disclosures.
 

A newly discovered genetic variant that is associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is responsible for almost 7% of all diabetes cases in Greenland, according to a whole-genome sequencing analysis of 448 Greenlandic Inuit individuals.

The variant, identified as c.1108G>T, “has the largest population impact of any previously reported variant” within the HNF1A gene – a gene that can cause maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY), reported senior author Torben Hansen, MD, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe. The c.1108G>T variant does not cause MODY, but other variants within the HNF1A gene do. However, carriers of this variant, which is present in 1.9% of the Greenlandic Inuit population and has not been found elsewhere, have normal insulin sensitivity, but decreased beta-cell function and a more than fourfold risk of developing type 2 diabetes. “This adds to a previous discovery that about 11% of all diabetes in Greenlandic Inuit is explained by a mutation in the TBC1D4 variant,” Dr. Hansen told this publication. “Thus 1 in 5 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in Greenland have a specific mutation explaining their diabetes. In European populations only about 1%-2% of patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes have a known genetic etiology.”

The finding “provides new avenues to subgroup patients, detect diabetes in family members, and pursue precision treatment trials,” noted the authors, although they acknowledged that treatment choices for individuals with this variant still need to be explored. “We know from HNF1A-mutation carriers with European ancestry that they benefit from sulfonylurea treatment,” said Dr. Hansen. “However, we have not yet done treatment studies in Inuit.” The investigators noted that “it is not always the case that variants in HNF1A result in an increased insulin secretory response to sulfonylurea. ... Whether carriers of the c.1108G>T variant could benefit from treatment with sulfonylurea should be pursued within the context of a randomized clinical trial establishing both short- and long-term efficacy of sulfonylurea in these patients.”

A total of 4,497 study participants were randomly sampled from two cross-sectional cohorts in an adult Greenlandic population health survey. Among 448 participants who had whole genome sequencing, 14 known MODY genes were screened for both previously identified as well as novel variants. This identified the c.1108G>T variant, which was then genotyped in the full cohort in order to estimate an allele frequency of 1.3% in the general Greenlandic population, and 1.9% in the Inuit component. The variant was not found in genome sequences of other populations.

The researchers then tested the association of the variant with T2D and showed strong association with T2D (odds ratio, 4.35) and higher hemoglobin A1c levels.

“This is very well-conducted and exciting research that highlights the importance of studying the genetics of diverse populations,” said Miriam Udler, MD, PhD, director of the Massachusetts General Diabetes Genetics Clinic, and assistant professor at Harvard University, both in Boston. “This manuscript builds on prior work from the researchers identifying another genetic variant specific to the Greenlandic Inuit population in the gene TBC1D4,” she added. “About 3.8% of people in this population carry two copies of the TBC1D4 variant and have about a 10-fold increased risk of diabetes. Together the two variants affect 18% of Greenlanders with diabetes.”

With its fourfold increased risk of diabetes, the new variant falls into “an ever-growing category” of “intermediate risk” genetic variants, explained Dr. Udler – “meaning that they have a large impact on diabetes risk, but cannot fully predict whether someone will get diabetes. The contribution of additional risk factors is particularly important for ‘intermediate risk’ genetic variants,” she added. “Thus, clinically, we can tell patients who have variants such as HNF1A c.1108>T that they are at substantial increased risk of diabetes, but that many will not develop diabetes. And for those who do develop diabetes, we are not yet able to advise on particular therapeutic strategies.”

Still, she emphasized, the importance of studying diverse populations with specific genetic risk factors is the end-goal of precision medicine. “An active area of research is determining whether and how to return such information about ‘intermediate risk’ variants to patients who get clinical genetic testing for diabetes, since typically only variants that are very high risk ... are returned in clinical testing reports.” Dr. Udler added that “many more such “intermediate risk’ variants likely exist in all populations, but have yet to be characterized because they are less common than HNF1A c.1108>T; however, ongoing worldwide efforts to increase the sample sizes of human genetic studies will facilitate such discovery.”

The study was funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation, Independent Research Fund Denmark, and Karen Elise Jensen’s Foundation. Dr. Hansen and Dr. Udler had no disclosures.
 

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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

When Mark Cucuzzella, MD, meets a new patient at the West Virginia Medical School clinic, he introduces himself as “Mark.” For one thing, says Dr. Cucuzzella, his last name is a mouthful. For another, the 56-year-old general practitioner asserts that getting on a first-name basis with his patients is integral to delivering the best care.

“I’m trying to break down the old paternalistic barriers of the doctor/patient relationship,” he says. “Titles create an environment where the doctors are making all the decisions and not involving the patient in any course of action.”

Aniruddh Setya, MD, has a different take on informality between patients and doctors: It’s not OK. “I am not your friend,” says the 35-year-old pediatrician from Florida-based KIDZ Medical Services. “There has to be a level of respect for the education and accomplishment of being a physician.”

The issue of “untitling” a doctor and failing to use their honorific is becoming increasingly common, according to a recent study published in JAMA Network Open. But that doesn’t mean most physicians support the practice. In fact, some doctors contend that it can be harmful, particularly to female physicians.

“My concern is that untitling (so termed by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD) intrudes upon important professional boundaries and might be correlated with diminishing the value of someone’s time,” says Leah Witt, MD, a geriatrician at UCSF Health, San Francisco. Dr. Witt, along with colleague Lekshmi Santhosh, MD, a pulmonologist, offered commentary on the study results. “Studies have shown that women physicians get more patient portal messages, spend more time in the electronic health record, and have longer visits,” Dr. Witt said. “Dr. Santhosh and I wonder if untitling is a signifier of this diminished value of our time, and an assumption of increased ease of access leading to this higher workload.”

To compile the results reported in JAMA Network Open, Mayo Clinic researchers analyzed more than 90,000 emails from patients to doctors over the course of 3 years, beginning in 2018. Of those emails, more than 32% included the physician’s first name in greeting or salutation. For women physicians, the odds were twice as high that their titles would be omitted in the correspondence. The same holds true for doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs) compared with MDs, and primary care physicians had similar odds for a title drop compared with specialists.

Dr. Witt says the findings are not surprising. “They match my experience as a woman in medicine, as Dr. Santhosh and I write in our commentary,” she says. “We think the findings could easily be replicated at other centers.”

Indeed, research on 321 speaker introductions at a medical rounds found that when female physicians introduced other physicians, they usually applied the doctor title. When the job of introducing colleagues fell to male physicians, however, the stats fell to 72.4% for male peers and only 49.2% when introducing female peers.

The Mayo Clinic study authors identified the pitfalls of patients who informally address their doctors. They wrote, “Untitling may have a negative impact on physicians, demonstrate lack of respect, and can lead to reduction in formality of the physician/patient relationship or workplace.”
 

Physician preferences vary

Although the results of the Mayo Clinic analysis didn’t and couldn’t address physician sentiments on patient informality, Dr. Setya observes that American culture is becoming less formal. “I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, and the number of people who consider doctors as equals is growing,” he says. “This has been particularly true over the last couple of years.”

This change was documented in 2015. Add in the pandemic and an entire society that is now accustomed to working from home in sweats, and it’s not a stretch to understand why some patients have become less formal in many settings. The 2015 article noted, however, that most physicians prefer to keep titles in the mix.

Perhaps most troublesome, says Dr. Setya, is that patients forgo asking whether it’s OK to use his first name and simply assume it’s acceptable. “It bothers me,” he says. “I became a doctor for more than the money.”

He suspects that his cultural background (Dr. Setya is of Indian descent) plays a role in how strongly he feels about patient-doctor informality. “As a British colony, Indian culture dictates that you pay respect to elders and to accomplishment,” he points out. “America is far looser when it comes to salutations.”

Dr. Cucuzzella largely agrees with Dr. Setya, but has a different view of the role culture plays in how physicians prefer to be addressed. “If your last name is difficult to pronounce, it can put the patient at ease if you give them an option,” he says. “I like my patients to feel comfortable and have a friendly conversation, so I don’t ask them to try to manage my last name.”

When patients revert to using Dr. Cucuzzella’s last name and title, this often breaks down along generational lines, Dr. Cucuzzella has found: Older patients might drop his title, whereas younger patients might keep it as a sign of respect. In some cases, Dr. Cucuzzella tries to bridge this gap, and offers the option of “Dr. Mark.” In his small West Virginia community, this is how people often refer to him.

Dr. Setya says that most of the older physicians he works with still prefer that patients and younger colleagues use their title, but he has witnessed exceptions to this. “My boss in residence hated to be called ‘Sir’ or ‘Doctor,’ ” he says. “In a situation like that, it is reasonable to ask, ‘How can I address you?’ But it has to be mutually agreed upon.”

Dr. Cucuzzella cites informality as the preferred mode for older patients. “If I have a 70-year-old patient, it seems natural they shouldn’t use my title,” he says. “They are worthy of equality in the community. If I’m talking to a retired CEO or state delegate, it’s uncomfortable if they call me doctor.”

Moreover, Dr. Cucuzzella maintains that establishing a less formal environment with patients leads to better outcomes. “Shared decision-making is a basic human right,” he says. “In 2022, doctors shouldn’t make decisions without patient input, unless it’s an emergency situation. Removing the title barriers makes that easier.”
 

How to handle informality

If you fall more in line with Dr. Setya, there are strategies you can use to try to keep formality in your doctor-patient relationships. Dr. Setya’s approach is indirect. “I don’t correct a patient if they use my first name, because that might seem hostile,” he says. “But I alert them in the way I address them back. A Sir, a Mrs., or a Mr. needs to go both ways.”

This particularly holds true in pediatrics, Dr. Setya has found. He has witnessed many colleagues addressing parents as “Mommy and Daddy,” something he says lacks respect and sets too informal a tone. “It’s almost universal that parents don’t like that, and we need to act accordingly.”

Dr. Witt also avoids directly correcting patients, but struggles when they drop her title. “The standard signature I use to sign every patient portal message I respond to includes my first and last name and credentials,” she says. “I maintain formality in most circumstances with that standard reply.”

Beneath the surface, however, Dr. Witt wishes it were easier. “I have struggled with answering the question, ‘Is it OK if I call you Leah?’ she says. “I want to keep our interaction anchored in professionalism without sacrificing the warmth I think is important to a productive patient-physician relationship. For this reason, I tend to say yes to this request, even though I’d rather patients didn’t make such requests.”

In the Fast Company article by Amy Diehl, PhD, and Leanne Dzubinski, PhD, on the topic of untitling professional women, the authors suggest several actions, beginning with leadership that sets expectations on the topic. They also suggest that physicians use polite corrections if patients untitle them. Supplying positive reinforcement when patients include your title can help, too. If all else fails, you can call out the offensive untitling. More often than not, especially with female physicians, the patient is demonstrating an unconscious bias rather than something deliberate.

Opinions vary on the topic of untitling, and ultimately each physician must make the decision for themselves. But creating informal cultures in an organization can have unintended consequences, especially for female peers.

Says Dr. Witt, “We all want to give our patients the best care we can, but professional boundaries are critical to time management, equitable care, and maintaining work-life balance. I would love to see a study that examines untitling by self-reported race and/or ethnicity of physicians, because we know that women of color experience higher rates of burnout and depression, and I wonder if untitling may be part of this.”

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