MDedge Cardiology

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

Seroprevalence surveys suggest that, from the beginning of the pandemic to 2022, more than a third of the global population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. As large numbers of people continue to be infected, the efficacy and duration of natural immunity, in terms of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and severe disease, are of crucial significance. The virus’s epidemiologic trajectory will be influenced by the trends in vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity.

Omicron’s immune evasion

Cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection are increasing around the world. According to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 650,000 people in England have been infected twice, and most of them were reinfected in the past 2 months. Before mid-November 2021, reinfections accounted for about 1% of reported cases, but the rate has now increased to around 10%. The reinfection risk was 16 times higher between mid-December 2021 and early January 2022. Experts believe that this spike in reinfections is related to the spread of Omicron, which overtook Delta as the dominant variant. Nonetheless, other aspects should also be considered.

Omicron’s greater propensity to spread is not unrelated to its ability to evade the body’s immune defenses. This aspect was raised in a letter recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors reported that the effectiveness of previous infection in preventing reinfection against the Alpha, Beta, and Delta variants was around 90%, but it was only 56% against Omicron.
 

Natural immunity

Natural immunity showed roughly similar effectiveness regarding protection against reinfection across different SARS-CoV-2 variants, with the exception of the Omicron variant. The risk of hospitalization and death was also reduced in SARS-CoV-2 reinfections versus primary infections. Observational studies indicate that natural immunity may offer equal or greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, compared with immunization with two doses of an mRNA vaccine, but the data are not fully consistent.

Natural immunity seems to be relatively long-lasting. Data from Denmark and Austria show no evidence that protection against reinfections wanes after 6 months. Some investigations indicate that protection against reinfection is lowest 4-5 months after initial infection and increases thereafter, a finding that might hypothetically be explained by persistent viral shedding; that is, misclassification of prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infections as reinfections. While no comparison was made against information pertaining to unvaccinated, not previously-infected individuals, preliminary data from Israel suggest that protection from reinfection can decrease from 6 to more than 12 months after the first SARS-CoV-2 infection. Taken together, epidemiologic studies indicate that protection against reinfections by natural immunity lasts over 1 year with only moderate, if any, decline over this period. Among older individuals, immunocompromised patients, and those with certain comorbidities or exposure risk (for example, health care workers), rates of reinfection may be higher. It is plausible that reinfection risk may be a function of exposure risk.

There is accumulating evidence that reinfections may be significantly less severe than primary infections with SARS-CoV-2. Reduced clinical severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections naturally also makes sense from a biologic point of view, inasmuch as a previously primed immune system should be better prepared for a rechallenge with this virus.
 

Vaccine-induced immunity

The short-term (<4 months) efficacy of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 is high and varies from 94.1% (Moderna) to 95% (BioNTech/Pfizer). This has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials and was subsequently confirmed in effectiveness studies in real-world settings. Waning efficacy was observed with respect to protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections (for example, only approximately 20% after about half a year in Qatar), whereas protection against severe disease was either sustained or showed only a moderate decline.

In individuals who received two doses of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine at least 5 months earlier, an additional vaccine dose, a so-called booster, significantly lowered mortality and severe illness. These findings suggest that the booster restored and probably exceeded the initial short-term efficacy of the initial vaccination.

Data are still emerging regarding the efficacy of boosters against the Omicron variants. Preliminary data suggest a far lower ability to restore protection from infection and vaccination. However, fatalities and hospitalizations remain low.
 

Natural immunity vs. vaccine-induced immunity

Comparisons of natural immunity with vaccine-induced immunity are complicated by a series of biases and by combinations of biases – for example, the biases of comparisons between infected and uninfected, plus the biases of comparisons between vaccinated and nonvaccinated, with strong potential selection biases and confounding. Of particular note, the proportion of people previously infected and/or vaccinated may influence estimates of effectiveness. Regarding this point, one study compared unvaccinated patients with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinated individuals followed up from a week after the second vaccine dose onward versus a group of unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals. The findings showed that, compared with unvaccinated, not previously infected individuals, the natural immunity group and the vaccinated group had similar protection of 94.8% and 92.8% against infection, of 94.1% and 94.2% against hospitalization, and of 96.4% and 94.4% against severe illness, respectively.

Hybrid immunity

The combination of a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and a respective vaccination is called hybrid immunity. This combination seems to confer the greatest protection against SARS-CoV-2 infections, but several knowledge gaps remain regarding this issue.

Data from Israel showed that, when the time since the last immunity-conferring event (either primary infection or vaccination) was the same, the rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were similar in the following groups: individuals who had a previous infection and no vaccination, individuals who had an infection and were then vaccinated with a single dose after at least 3 months, and individuals who were vaccinated (two doses) and then infected. Severe disease was relatively rare overall.

Data on the efficacy of hybrid immunity point in the direction of hybrid immunity being superior, as compared with either vaccine-induced (without a booster) immunity or natural immunity alone. Timing and mode of vaccination of previously infected individuals to achieve optimal hybrid immunity are central questions that remain to be addressed in future studies.

Given that vaccination rates are continuously increasing and that, by the beginning of 2022, perhaps half or more of the global population had already been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with the vast majority of this group not being officially detected, it would appear logical that future infection waves, even with highly transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2, may be limited with respect to their maximum potential health burden. The advent of Omicron suggests that massive surges can occur even in populations with extremely high rates of previous vaccination and variable rates of prior infections. However, even then, the accompanying burden of hospitalizations and deaths is far less than what was seen in 2020 and 2021. One may argue that the pandemic has already transitioned to the endemic phase and that Omicron is an endemic wave occurring in the setting of already widespread population immunity.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

COVID-19 infection appears to significantly raise the risk for diabetes by about 40% at 1 year, indicate new data from a very large Veterans Administration population.

“If patients have a prior history of COVID-19, that’s a risk factor for diabetes and they should certainly be screened for diabetes,” study coauthor Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a nephrologist and chief of research and development at VA St. Louis Health Care, told this news organization.

“It’s still premature to make guidelines. I think we have to process the data landscape to understand what this all really means, but it’s really, really clear that all these roads are pointing in one direction, that COVID-19 increases the risk of diabetes up to a year later. The risk is small but not negligible,” he said.

The database includes over 8 million people and 180,000 with a prior COVID-19 diagnosis. Significantly increased diabetes risks compared to those not infected ranging from 31% to more than double were found in an analysis of subgroups based on diabetes risk score, body mass index, age, race, prediabetes status, and deprivation level, even after adjustment for confounding factors.

There was a gradient of diabetes risk by COVID-19 severity – i.e., whether patients had not been hospitalized, had been hospitalized, or stayed in intensive care – but a significant excess diabetes burden was seen even among those with “mild” COVID-19. The diabetes risk was also elevated compared to both contemporary and historical controls.

The study was published March 21 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, by Yan Xie, MPH, also of VA St Louis Health Care, along with Dr. Al-Aly.

The data align with those from another study just published from a nationwide German primary care database. That study was smaller and of shorter duration than the new VA study but consistent, said Dr. Al-Aly, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, St. Louis.

Millions more with new diabetes as late manifestation of COVID-19

“Millions of people in the U.S. have had COVID-19, so this is going to translate to literally millions more people with new-onset diabetes. Better to identify them early so they can be adequately treated,” Dr. Al-Aly said in an interview.

“The long-term implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection increasing diabetes risk are profound,” Venkat Narayan, MD, and Lisa R. Staimez, PhD, both of the Rollins School of Public Health and Emory Global Diabetes Research Center at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an accompanying editorial.

“With large and growing numbers of people worldwide infected with SARS-CoV-2 (434,154,739 cumulative cases by Feb. 28, 2022), any COVID-19-related increases in diabetes incidence could lead to unprecedented cases of diabetes worldwide – wreaking havoc on already over-stretched and under-resourced clinical and public health systems globally, with devastating tolls in terms of deaths and suffering,” they added.

Medscape Medical News contributor Eric Topol MD, of Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif., agrees. He said these new data “are most profound. The researchers found a 40% increase in diabetes that wasn’t present at 1 month after COVID-19 but at 1 year, it was. Some kind of late manifestation is happening here.”  

Dr. Al-Aly told this news organization that the mechanisms for the association are unknown and likely to be heterogeneous. Among the people who already had risk factors for type 2 diabetes, such as obesity or metabolic syndrome, SARS-CoV-2 could simply accelerate that process and “put them over the edge” to overt diabetes.

However, for those without diabetes risk factors, “COVID-19 with all the inflammation it provokes in the body could be leading to de novo disease.” (Diabetes status was ascertained by ICD-10 codes and only about 0.70% of the total were recorded as type 1 diabetes. But, since autoantibody testing wasn’t routinely conducted, it’s unknown how many of the cases may have been type 1 misclassified as type 2, Dr. Al-Aly acknowledged.)
 

Diabetes risk significantly increased after COVID-19 in all analyses

The analysis included 181,280 patients in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs health care database with a COVID-19 diagnosis who survived for at least 30 days afterward during March 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021, with 4,118,441 contemporary controls without COVID-19 seen during 2019, and a historical control group of 4,286,911 people seen at the VA in 2017. Average follow-up was about a year.

Compared with the contemporary controls, the COVID-19 group had an excess diabetes burden of 13.46 per 1,000 person-years with a hazard ratio of 1.40. They had an increased 12.35 per 1,000 person-year risk for incident use of glucose-lowering medications, with a hazard ratio of 1.85. Similar results were seen with the historical controls.

Subgroup analyses showed an increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection by age (≤ 65 years and > 65 years), race (White and Black), sex (male and female), BMI categories (> 18.5 to ≤ 25 kg/m², > 25 to ≤ 30 kg/m², and > 30 kg/m²), and area deprivation index quartiles. The increased risk was also seen across diabetes risk score quartiles.

Notably, COVID-19 significantly elevated the diabetes risk by 59% even for the subgroup with BMI between 18 and 25 kg/m², and by 38% among those with the lowest diabetes risk score quartile.

The COVID-19 population included 162,096 who were not hospitalized, 15,078 hospitalized, and 4,106 admitted to intensive care. Here, the hazard ratios for diabetes compared to the contemporary controls were 1.25, 2.73, and 3.76, respectively, all significant.  

Dr. Al-Aly said that his group is now further analyzing the VA data for other outcomes including cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, as well as the now well-documented long COVID symptoms including fatigue, pain, and neurocognitive dysfunction.

They’re also investigating the impact of the COVID-19 vaccine to see whether the risks are mitigated in the case of breakthrough infections: “We’re doing a broad systematic assessment. The next paper will be more comprehensive.”

Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez wrote: “The potential connection between COVID-19 and diabetes highlights that infectious diseases (eg, SARS-CoV-2) and chronic diseases (eg, diabetes) cannot be viewed in siloes. When we emerge out of the pandemic, the much-neglected non-communicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, will continue their relentless trajectory, possibly in an accelerated manner, as the leading burdens of global health.” 

Dr. Al-Aly declared support from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the submitted work. He has received consultation fees from Gilead Sciences and funding (unrelated to this work) from Tonix Pharmaceuticals. He is a member of the board of directors for Veterans Research and Education Foundation of Saint Louis, associate editor for the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, and a member of multiple editorial boards. Dr. Narayan and Dr. Staimez have received support from the National Institutes of Health.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

A sudden drop in blood pressure when standing is a common and concerning problem in elderly hypertensive people. Now, research suggests a large BP swing in the opposite direction on standing may be equally concerning in younger hypertensive people.

Young and middle-aged adults with a systolic BP response to standing greater than 6.5 mm Hg had almost double the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) during follow-up, compared with other participants.

An exaggerated BP response remained an independent predictor of MACE, even after adjusting for traditional risk factors, including 24-hour BP (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.44), the study showed.

“The clinical implication is important, because now doctors measure blood pressure in young people in the upright posture, but what we say is it must be measured also while standing,” said Paolo Palatini, MD, a professor of internal medicine at the University of Padova, Italy, who led the study.

Previous studies have found that an exaggerated BP response to standing is a predictor of future hypertension, CV events, and mortality, particularly in older patients, but few prognostic data exist in those who are young to middle age, he noted.

The study, published in Hypertension, included 1,207 participants ages 18-45 years with untreated stage 1 hypertension (systolic BP 140-159 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-100 mm Hg) in the prospective multicenter HARVEST study that began in Italy in 1990. The average age at enrollment was 33 years.

BP was measured at two visits 2 weeks apart, with each visit including three supine measurements taken after the patient had lain down for a minimum of 5 minutes, followed by three standing measurements taken 1 minute apart.

Based on the average of standing-lying BP differences during the two visits, participants were then classified as having a normal or exaggerated (top decile, lower limit > 6.5 mm Hg) systolic BP response to standing.

The 120 participants classified as “hyper-reactors” averaged an 11.4 mm Hg systolic BP increase upon standing, whereas the rest of the participants averaged a 3.8 mm Hg fall in systolic BP upon standing.

At their initial visit, hyper-reactors were more likely to be smokers (32.1% vs. 19.9%) and coffee drinkers (81.7% vs. 73%) and to have ambulatory hypertension (90.8% vs. 76.4%).

They were, however, no more likely to have a family history of cardiovascular events and had a lower supine systolic BP (140.5 mm Hg vs. 146.0 mm Hg), lower total cholesterol (4.93 mmol/L vs. 5.13 mmol/L), and higher HDL cholesterol (1.42 mmol/L vs. 1.35 mmol/L).

Age, sex, and body mass index were similar between the two groups, as was BP variability, nocturnal BP dip, and the frequency of extreme dippers. Participants with a normal systolic BP response were more likely to be treated for hypertension during follow-up (81.7% vs. 69.7%; P = .003).

In 630 participants who had catecholamines measured from 24-hour urine samples, the epinephrine/creatinine ratio was higher in hyper-reactors than normal responders (118.4 nmol/mol vs. 77.0 nmol/mol; P = .005).

During a median follow-up of 17.3 years, there were 105 major cardiovascular events, broadly defined to include acute coronary syndromes (48), any stroke (13), heart failure requiring hospitalization (3), aortic aneurysms (3), peripheral vascular disease (6), chronic kidney disease (12), and permanent atrial fibrillation (20).

The near doubling of MACE risk among hyper-reactors remained when atrial fibrillation was excluded and when 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP was included in the model, the author reported.

The results are in line with previous studies, indicating that hyper-reactors to standing have normal sympathetic activity at rest but an increased sympathetic response to stressors, observed Dr. Palatini and colleagues. This neurohumoral overshoot seems to be peculiar to young adults, whereas vascular stiffness seems to be the driving mechanism of orthostatic hypertension in older adults.

If a young person’s BP spikes upon standing, “then you have to treat them according to the average of the lying and the standing pressure,” Dr. Palatini said. “In these people, blood pressure should be treated earlier than in the past.”

“The study is important because it identified a new marker for hypertension that is easily evaluated in clinical practice,” Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the Atria Institute, New York, and an associate professor of medicine at New York University Grossman School of Medicine, commented via email.

She noted that standing blood pressures are usually not taken as part of a medical visit and, in fact, seated blood pressures are often taken incorrectly while the patient is seated on the exam table rather than with their feet on the floor and using the proper cuff size.

“By incorporating standing BP, we will improve our diagnosis for hypertension, and with interventions such as diet and exercise, salt reduction, and medication when indicated, lower risk for heart attack, stroke, heart failure, [and] kidney and eye disease,” said Dr. Goldberg, who is also a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

“The biggest barrier is that office visits are limited to 15 minutes, and not enough time is spent on the vital signs,” she noted. “We need changes to the health care system that value our ability to diagnose BP and take the time to counsel patients and explain treatment options.”

Limitations of the present study are that 72.7% of participants were men and all were White, Dr. Palatini said. Future work is also needed to create a uniform definition of BP hyper-reactivity to standing, possibly based on risk estimates, for inclusion in future hypertension guidelines.

The study was funded by the Association 18 Maggio 1370 in Italy. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Goldberg reported being a spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

Pfizer is voluntarily recalling some antihypertensive medications because of unacceptable levels of a potential carcinogen, the company announced. 

The affected products are quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide (Accuretic) tablets that Pfizer distributes, and two authorized generics, quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and quinapril HCI/hydrochlorothiazide, distributed by Greenstone. The drugs have been withdrawn because of the presence of nitrosamine, N-nitroso-quinapril.

“Although long-term ingestion of N-nitroso-quinapril may be associated with a potential increased cancer risk in humans, there is no immediate risk to patients taking this medication,” Pfizer said in a news release.

The tablets are indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Patients currently taking the products are asked to consult with their doctor about alternative treatment options.

To date, there have been no reports of adverse events related to the recall, the company said.

In all, Pfizer is recalling six lots of Accuretic tablets (two at 10 mg/12.5 mg, three at 20 mg/12.5 mg, and one at 20 mg/25 mg), one lot of quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide 20-mg/25-mg tablets, and four lots of quinapril HCl/ hydrochlorothiazide tablets (three at 20 mg/12.5 mg and one at 20 mg/25 mg)

The recalled tablets were sold in 90-count bottles distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico between November 2019 and March 2022. Product codes and lot numbers of the recalled medications are listed on the Pfizer website.

Patients who are taking this product should consult with their health care provider or pharmacy to determine if they have the affected product. Those with the affected tablets should contact claims management firm Sedgwick by phone at 888-843-0247 Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET for instructions on how to return their product and obtain reimbursement.

Health care providers with medical questions regarding the recall can contact Pfizer by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 3, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. ET.

Providers should report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these tablets to Pfizer either by telephone at 800-438-1985, option 1, by regular mail or by fax, or to the Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch program.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The American College of Cardiology has issued a new health policy statement directed at eliminating the bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment that hamstrings the delivery of quality cardiovascular care.

“We pay a lot of attention, of course, to our patients and patient care issues but our ability to care optimally for patients is limited if the workforce is handicapped in any way,” said Pamela S. Douglas, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cochaired the writing committee.

The document is the second in the ACC’s diversity inclusion initiative, following the 2019 report on equal compensation and opportunity in cardiology, but the foundation for the work actually started 5 years ago, she told this news organization.

“Unfortunately, COVID and other world events have created a climate in the United States where people don’t treat each other terribly well,” Dr. Douglas said. “It’s divisive and confrontational often, when it should be collaborative. So this document, at this time, was serendipitous but wonderful timing.”

The 2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workforce was published online March 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 63-page document provides 12 principles for building a better workplace, starting with the belief that civil behavior and respect are inherent in its core values of teamwork, collaboration, and professionalism.

The ACC calls on all organizations and individuals involved in providing cardiovascular care, education, or research to recognize the “ubiquity” of uncivil behavior and the continuum of bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment (BDBH) that characterize it.

Some of the recommendations they offer to eliminate these behaviors include:

• Creating institutional policies and resources to ensure hiring decisions, evaluations, and departmental/program/center reviews are objective.
• Including assessments of personal behaviors related to respect and civility in performance reviews.
• Establishing confidential, fair, and transparent mechanisms for reporting and investigating individuals and/or departments suspected of BDBH.
• Adopting longitudinal metrics and accurate data collection to track progress and inform future policy and interventions.
• Encouraging independent evaluation of institutional culture and efforts to reduce BDBH.
• Celebrating those who promote and achieve excellence in reducing BDBH.

Patients behaving badly

What’s new, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, is the number of patients who themselves engage in disrespectful and uncivil behavior, observed Dr. Douglas.

“As physicians, it was the patient’s always right. So you work to do backflips to accommodate the patient,” she said. “But when the patient says: I don’t want to be treated by anybody that comes from outside the United States, that’s not our society anymore. And that has to be addressed and dealt with.”

The policy statement features a suite of online tools and resources including 15 case examples and 30 sample policies from institutions that have been anonymized and some provide an action framework for addressing this type of patient behavior, Dr. Douglas said. An individual, for example, can ask the patient why they made the remark, explaining that the provider is qualified and someone they’d like to have care for their own family. If it was a trainee on the receiving end, it’s fair for them to go back to their supervisor, mentor, or training director.

“They should back you up and explain to the patient that it’s not who we are at this hospital and that they’re happy to provide care, but they are part of the hospital and need to obey the rules and environment in this hospital,” she said.

Writing committee cochair Michael J. Mack, MD, of Baylor Scott & White Health, Plano, Tex., told tthis news organization that “one of the concepts that I hadn’t heard before that resonated with me was the term ‘upstander’ – that you can’t just be a bystander and watch this happen and do nothing. If you’re witness to this in the workplace, if it’s gender bias or racial bias, you need to get involved and reach out to that individual and see what you can do to help and be a reporter of it.”
 

But it’s all too costly

Financial constraints are often cited as a reason not to focus on bias, discrimination, bullying, and harassment in the workplace or to shelve initiatives, but it’s a false argument, say Dr. Mack and Dr. Douglas.

“One of the case examples is a cardiology practice that is suffering a decline in finances, and the board makes the recommendation that the efforts at diversity and civil workplaces need to be the first to go,” Dr. Mack explained. “And the point that’s being made in this is you can’t afford not to do it because it ends up being more costly to the business in the long run.”

Part of that cost is associated with losing valuable employees that were contributing but left because there wasn’t a culture of respectfulness and positivity in their workplace. While that’s always been a risk, it’s become a particularly compelling issue because of the workforce shortages present 3 years on in the pandemic, he said.

“There’s a new reexamination to be sure that we have a positive work environment that people want to come to work at every day,” he said. “I run our Research Institute, and normally we have a 5% vacancy rate, and our unfilled-position rate is 25% right now.”

Health care is delivered as a team today, but if a member feels disrespected, or worse – harassed, bullied, or discriminated against – they’re not going to contribute at the top of their game, Dr. Douglas said.

“It’s very well documented that bad behavior exists and that it has negative consequences for patient care for institutions, who are at great risk legally and regulatory wise,” she said. “And the document makes that clear that that risk is increasing.”

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the Joint Commission now requires good behavior in institutions that it accredits and that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires education around professionalism and evidence that their trainees are treated as professionals.

Funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health have also jumped into this space, recently establishing a hotline to report harassment, discrimination, and bullying perpetrated by an NIH-funded investigator, and giving institutions 30 days to investigate.

“In the last 2 years they have defunded, taken away the grants of 75 investigators, compared to zero in the 5 years before that,” Dr. Douglas said. “So I think, even though the bad behavior may be escalating, the consequences are escalating too.”

The new “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Building Respect, Civility, and Inclusion in the Cardiovascular Workplace” will be discussed in a session at the ACC 2022 Scientific Sessions on April 2 at 4:15 p.m. ET.

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

The health benefits of intermittent fasting are slowly being clarified as more evidence continues to emerge, say the authors of a new review of 21 studies. Initial findings suggest that fasting might be effective for mild to moderate weight loss for certain groups of people, at least in the short term.

And data so far at least dispel the myth that “people are going to feel weak and not be able to concentrate during fasting,” lead researcher Krista A. Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted in a press release from her university.

“We’ve shown it is the opposite,” she said. “They actually have a better ability to concentrate.”

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

Yet much longer-term data are needed on issues such as safety, Dr. Varady and colleagues note in their review in Nature Reviews: Endocrinology .

The trials so far have only been conducted in adults – generally with overweight or obesity and sometimes hypertension, dyslipidemia, and/or diabetes – but some have been performed in those of normal weight.

Dr. Varady and colleague recommend that those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or other comorbidities, or patients who need to take medications with meals at certain times of the day, should seek clinical supervision when considering intermittent fasting.

And currently, based on existing evidence, intermittent fasting is contraindicated for children under age 12 and those who have a history of an eating disorder or a body mass index <18.5 kg/m². Opinions vary about the safety of supervised fasting in adolescents with obesity. Also, safety has not been evaluated in those older than age 70, and in women who are pregnant or lactating.
 

‘A few studies’ show 3%-8% weight loss over 2-3 months

Despite the recent surge in the popularity of intermittent fasting, “only a few studies have examined the health benefits of these diets in humans,” Dr. Varady and coauthors emphasize.

They identified 21 clinical trials of three types of intermittent fasting strategies:

Alternate day fasting (alternating between consuming 0-500 kcal on “fasting” days, followed by unlimited food on “feasting” days), six trials.

5:2 diet (“feasting” on 5 days and “fasting” on 2 days), seven trials.

Time-restricted eating (eating during a 4- to 8- hour window), nine trials.

The trials were short (mostly 5-12 weeks long) and small (10-150 participants), and mostly conducted in the United States. 

They found these strategies can all produce a mild to moderate 3%-8% weight loss during 8-12 weeks, similar to that attained with a calorie-restricted diet.

Some studies found that patients had improvements in blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, insulin resistance, and hemoglobin A1c.

These weight-loss strategies produced few gastrointestinal, neurological, hormonal, or metabolic adverse effects; “however, as adverse outcomes are not regularly assessed in human trials of fasting, definitive conclusions regarding the safety of these diets are difficult to draw at present,” the researchers caution.

Practical advice, great anecdotes

Typically, 1-2 weeks of adjustment is needed when individuals start intermittent fasting, the researchers say.

While following this eating pattern, patients should be encouraged to consume plenty of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to boost their fiber and micronutrient intake.

On fasting days, they should consume at least 50 g of lean protein to help control hunger and prevent excessive loss of lean mass. On those days, alcohol is permitted but not recommended. Energy drinks and coffee or tea without sugar, milk, or cream are allowed, and diet soda should be limited to two servings a day because it can increase sugar cravings.

Ideally, clinicians should regularly assess patients for adverse effects during the first 3 months of intermittent fasting. They should also monitor patients for deficiencies in vitamin D, vitamin B₁₂, and electrolytes, as well as for changes in medications for blood pressure, lipids, and glucose that may be needed if patients lose weight.

Patients who reach their weight-loss goals and wish to stop intermittent fasting need to transition to a weight-maintenance program, possibly by increasing energy intake on fasting days to 1,000-1,200 kcal/day or widening the eating window to 12 hours in time-restricted eating.

“I get lots of emails from people saying that they have been on the diet for 10-15 years, and it reversed their type 2 diabetes, and they lost 60 pounds, and it was the only diet they could stick to,” Dr. Varady noted.

“That is always nice to hear, but we really do need long-term data to see if people can do intermittent fasting for the long term,” she reiterated.  

The review was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Varady received author fees from the Hachette Book Group for the book, “The Every Other Day Diet.” The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The health benefits of intermittent fasting are slowly being clarified as more evidence continues to emerge, say the authors of a new review of 21 studies. Initial findings suggest that fasting might be effective for mild to moderate weight loss for certain groups of people, at least in the short term.

And data so far at least dispel the myth that “people are going to feel weak and not be able to concentrate during fasting,” lead researcher Krista A. Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted in a press release from her university.

“We’ve shown it is the opposite,” she said. “They actually have a better ability to concentrate.”

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

Yet much longer-term data are needed on issues such as safety, Dr. Varady and colleagues note in their review in Nature Reviews: Endocrinology .

The trials so far have only been conducted in adults – generally with overweight or obesity and sometimes hypertension, dyslipidemia, and/or diabetes – but some have been performed in those of normal weight.

Dr. Varady and colleague recommend that those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or other comorbidities, or patients who need to take medications with meals at certain times of the day, should seek clinical supervision when considering intermittent fasting.

And currently, based on existing evidence, intermittent fasting is contraindicated for children under age 12 and those who have a history of an eating disorder or a body mass index <18.5 kg/m². Opinions vary about the safety of supervised fasting in adolescents with obesity. Also, safety has not been evaluated in those older than age 70, and in women who are pregnant or lactating.
 

‘A few studies’ show 3%-8% weight loss over 2-3 months

Despite the recent surge in the popularity of intermittent fasting, “only a few studies have examined the health benefits of these diets in humans,” Dr. Varady and coauthors emphasize.

They identified 21 clinical trials of three types of intermittent fasting strategies:

Alternate day fasting (alternating between consuming 0-500 kcal on “fasting” days, followed by unlimited food on “feasting” days), six trials.

5:2 diet (“feasting” on 5 days and “fasting” on 2 days), seven trials.

Time-restricted eating (eating during a 4- to 8- hour window), nine trials.

The trials were short (mostly 5-12 weeks long) and small (10-150 participants), and mostly conducted in the United States. 

They found these strategies can all produce a mild to moderate 3%-8% weight loss during 8-12 weeks, similar to that attained with a calorie-restricted diet.

Some studies found that patients had improvements in blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, insulin resistance, and hemoglobin A1c.

These weight-loss strategies produced few gastrointestinal, neurological, hormonal, or metabolic adverse effects; “however, as adverse outcomes are not regularly assessed in human trials of fasting, definitive conclusions regarding the safety of these diets are difficult to draw at present,” the researchers caution.

Practical advice, great anecdotes

Typically, 1-2 weeks of adjustment is needed when individuals start intermittent fasting, the researchers say.

While following this eating pattern, patients should be encouraged to consume plenty of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to boost their fiber and micronutrient intake.

On fasting days, they should consume at least 50 g of lean protein to help control hunger and prevent excessive loss of lean mass. On those days, alcohol is permitted but not recommended. Energy drinks and coffee or tea without sugar, milk, or cream are allowed, and diet soda should be limited to two servings a day because it can increase sugar cravings.

Ideally, clinicians should regularly assess patients for adverse effects during the first 3 months of intermittent fasting. They should also monitor patients for deficiencies in vitamin D, vitamin B₁₂, and electrolytes, as well as for changes in medications for blood pressure, lipids, and glucose that may be needed if patients lose weight.

Patients who reach their weight-loss goals and wish to stop intermittent fasting need to transition to a weight-maintenance program, possibly by increasing energy intake on fasting days to 1,000-1,200 kcal/day or widening the eating window to 12 hours in time-restricted eating.

“I get lots of emails from people saying that they have been on the diet for 10-15 years, and it reversed their type 2 diabetes, and they lost 60 pounds, and it was the only diet they could stick to,” Dr. Varady noted.

“That is always nice to hear, but we really do need long-term data to see if people can do intermittent fasting for the long term,” she reiterated.  

The review was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Varady received author fees from the Hachette Book Group for the book, “The Every Other Day Diet.” The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The health benefits of intermittent fasting are slowly being clarified as more evidence continues to emerge, say the authors of a new review of 21 studies. Initial findings suggest that fasting might be effective for mild to moderate weight loss for certain groups of people, at least in the short term.

And data so far at least dispel the myth that “people are going to feel weak and not be able to concentrate during fasting,” lead researcher Krista A. Varady, PhD, professor of nutrition in the University of Illinois at Chicago, noted in a press release from her university.

“We’ve shown it is the opposite,” she said. “They actually have a better ability to concentrate.”

Wildpixel/thinkstockphotos.com

Yet much longer-term data are needed on issues such as safety, Dr. Varady and colleagues note in their review in Nature Reviews: Endocrinology .

The trials so far have only been conducted in adults – generally with overweight or obesity and sometimes hypertension, dyslipidemia, and/or diabetes – but some have been performed in those of normal weight.

Dr. Varady and colleague recommend that those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or other comorbidities, or patients who need to take medications with meals at certain times of the day, should seek clinical supervision when considering intermittent fasting.

And currently, based on existing evidence, intermittent fasting is contraindicated for children under age 12 and those who have a history of an eating disorder or a body mass index <18.5 kg/m². Opinions vary about the safety of supervised fasting in adolescents with obesity. Also, safety has not been evaluated in those older than age 70, and in women who are pregnant or lactating.
 

‘A few studies’ show 3%-8% weight loss over 2-3 months

Despite the recent surge in the popularity of intermittent fasting, “only a few studies have examined the health benefits of these diets in humans,” Dr. Varady and coauthors emphasize.

They identified 21 clinical trials of three types of intermittent fasting strategies:

Alternate day fasting (alternating between consuming 0-500 kcal on “fasting” days, followed by unlimited food on “feasting” days), six trials.

5:2 diet (“feasting” on 5 days and “fasting” on 2 days), seven trials.

Time-restricted eating (eating during a 4- to 8- hour window), nine trials.

The trials were short (mostly 5-12 weeks long) and small (10-150 participants), and mostly conducted in the United States. 

They found these strategies can all produce a mild to moderate 3%-8% weight loss during 8-12 weeks, similar to that attained with a calorie-restricted diet.

Some studies found that patients had improvements in blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, insulin resistance, and hemoglobin A1c.

These weight-loss strategies produced few gastrointestinal, neurological, hormonal, or metabolic adverse effects; “however, as adverse outcomes are not regularly assessed in human trials of fasting, definitive conclusions regarding the safety of these diets are difficult to draw at present,” the researchers caution.

Practical advice, great anecdotes

Typically, 1-2 weeks of adjustment is needed when individuals start intermittent fasting, the researchers say.

While following this eating pattern, patients should be encouraged to consume plenty of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to boost their fiber and micronutrient intake.

On fasting days, they should consume at least 50 g of lean protein to help control hunger and prevent excessive loss of lean mass. On those days, alcohol is permitted but not recommended. Energy drinks and coffee or tea without sugar, milk, or cream are allowed, and diet soda should be limited to two servings a day because it can increase sugar cravings.

Ideally, clinicians should regularly assess patients for adverse effects during the first 3 months of intermittent fasting. They should also monitor patients for deficiencies in vitamin D, vitamin B₁₂, and electrolytes, as well as for changes in medications for blood pressure, lipids, and glucose that may be needed if patients lose weight.

Patients who reach their weight-loss goals and wish to stop intermittent fasting need to transition to a weight-maintenance program, possibly by increasing energy intake on fasting days to 1,000-1,200 kcal/day or widening the eating window to 12 hours in time-restricted eating.

“I get lots of emails from people saying that they have been on the diet for 10-15 years, and it reversed their type 2 diabetes, and they lost 60 pounds, and it was the only diet they could stick to,” Dr. Varady noted.

“That is always nice to hear, but we really do need long-term data to see if people can do intermittent fasting for the long term,” she reiterated.  

The review was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Dr. Varady received author fees from the Hachette Book Group for the book, “The Every Other Day Diet.” The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

People who recover from a mild case of COVID-19 appear to have an increased risk for subsequent new-onset type 2 diabetes but not other types of diabetes, new data suggest.

“If confirmed, the results of the present study indicate that diabetes screening in individuals who have recovered from even mild COVID-19 should be recommended,” say Wolfgang Rathmann, MD, of the Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and colleagues.

The findings, from a nationwide primary care database in Germany, were recently published in Diabetologia.

These primary care data align with those from other studies of more seriously ill patients with COVID-19 that found increased rates of type 2 diabetes diagnoses in the subsequent months following illness, they point out.

“COVID-19 infection may lead to diabetes by upregulation of the immune system after remission, which may induce pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction and insulin resistance, or patients may have been at risk for developing diabetes due to having obesity or prediabetes, and the stress COVID-19 put on their bodies sped it up,” said Dr. Rathmann in a press release.

However, because the patients with COVID-19 in the study were only followed for about 3 months, “further follow-up is needed to understand whether type 2 diabetes after mild COVID-19 is just temporary and can be reversed after they have fully recovered or whether it leads to a chronic condition,” he noted.
 

Increase in type 2 diabetes 3 months after mild COVID-19

The retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the Disease Analyzer, a representative panel of 1,171 physician practices in Germany, from March 2020 to January 2021, with follow-up through July 2021.

Individuals with a history of COVID-19 or diabetes and those taking corticosteroids within 30 days after the index dates were excluded.

A total of 35,865 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were propensity score-matched on a one-to-one basis for sex, age, health insurance, and comorbidities with those who had acute respiratory tract infections (controls) but were COVID-19 negative. Median follow-up was 119 days for the COVID-19 group and 161 days for controls.

There was a 28% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for those who had COVID-19 versus controls (15.8 per 1,000 person-years vs. 12.3 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, which was significantly different, and an incidence rate ratio of 1.28).

The incidence of other types of diabetes or unspecified diabetes for the COVID-19 and control groups did not differ significantly (4.3 per 1,000 person-years vs. 3.7 per 1,000 person-years; IRR, 1.17).

Similar findings were seen in sensitivity analyses by glucose-lowering medication prescriptions and by ICD-10 codes.

Although type 2 diabetes is not likely to be a problem for the vast majority of people who have mild COVID-19, the authors recommend that anyone who has recovered from COVID-19 be aware of the warning signs and symptoms such as fatigue, frequent urination, and increased thirst, and seek treatment right away.

CoviDiab registry tracking type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Over the course of the pandemic, there have been conflicting data on whether COVID-19 induces or reveals a propensity for type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The CoviDiab global registry is tracking this and will include diabetes type for adults and children.

The aim is to have “as many as possible cases of new-onset diabetes for which we can have also a minimum set of clinical data including type of diabetes and A1c,” coprincipal investigator Francesco Rubino, MD, of King’s College London, previously told this news organization.

“By looking at this information we can infer whether a role of COVID-19 in triggering diabetes is clinically plausible – or not – and what type of diabetes is most frequently associated with COVID-19.”

Rubino said that the CoviDiab team is approaching the data with the assumption that, at least in adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the explanation might be that the person already had undiagnosed diabetes or the hyperglycemia may be stress-induced and temporary.

The German Diabetes Center is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Culture and Science of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia. Dr. Rathmann has reported receiving consulting fees for attending educational sessions or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk and institutional research grants from Novo Nordisk outside of the topic of the current work.

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

Key takeaways

Results from a retrospective, observational, case-control study of more than 20,000 people from a single U.S. medical center showed a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c in people following COVID-19 infection, in both those with and without diabetes.

After people received a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, they were 40% more likely to also receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, compared with people who tested negative for COVID-19, a difference that was significant and could be explained by the increased medical care received by people who test positive for COVID-19.

The risk of incident diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among people who tested positive for COVID-19 was significantly higher among those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, those using insulin, and among Black individuals.
 

Why this matters

The authors said that their study is the first report of evidence that infection with COVID-19 affects A1c levels in a large, real-world clinical cohort.

Until now, the impact of COVID-19 infection on A1c remained unclear. Results from previous studies indicated that COVID-19 infection may increase A1c levels, but the studied cohorts were small and lacked uninfected controls.

The current study included 8,755 people infected with COVID-19, had data from both before and after the infection on diabetes status and A1c levels, and also included many matched, uninfected people who served as controls.
 

Study design

Data came from a Cleveland Clinic registry that included 81,093 people who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021 and 153,034 matched individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 during the same period.

The researchers retrospectively selected patients with an A1c recorded within 12 months before their COVID-19 test, as well as a second A1c value recorded within 12 months after COVID-19 testing. This produced a study cohort of 8,755 COVID-positive people and 11,998 matched people who tested negative for COVID-19.

To evaluate the risk of DKA onset after COVID-19 infection, the authors identified two sub-cohorts that excluded those with a history of DKA. The sub-cohorts were 701 people with type 1 diabetes and 21,830 with type 2 diabetes.
 

Key results

The investigators found a statistically significant but clinically insignificant A1c increase following a positive COVID-19 test, an average A1c increase of 0.06 percentage points. Those who tested negative for COVID-19 had a clinically insignificant change in their average A1c level that was of borderline statistical significance, an average increase of 0.02 percentage points (P = .05).

The statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c following infection with COVID-19 was similar in people with and without type 2 diabetes prior to infection.

In patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19, the researchers saw significant positive associations between higher A1c levels before infection and time to hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.07), need for assisted breathing (HR, 1.06), and ICU admission (HR, 1.07).

Following a COVID-19 infection, people were 40% more likely to receive a diagnosis of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with matched uninfected people. The authors said a possible explanation is that after diagnosis of COVID-19, infected people in general received more intensified care that led to better identification of those with underlying type 2 diabetes.

The 701 people included with pre-existing type 1 diabetes showed no significant difference in their rate of developing DKA between those infected and not infected with COVID-19.

Among the 21,830 people with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, the DKA risk was a significant 35% greater for those who were infected with COVID-19, compared with those who were uninfected. The magnitude of this increased relative risk was even higher among the patients with type 2 diabetes who used insulin as part of their treatment.  

The difference in DKA risk didn’t differ between Black and White patients who were not infected with COVID-19, but among those infected by COVID-19, Black patients were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with DKA, compared with White patients, a significant difference.

Black patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19 had a significant (63%) increased rate of DKA compared with Black patients with type 2 diabetes who remained uninfected.
 

Limitations

The study included patients with A1c measurements made up to 12 months prior to their COVID-19 test, and hence comorbid conditions, medication changes during this period, or other factors may have affected subsequent A1c levels. To address this, the authors also assessed outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals, which produced results consistent with the 12-month findings.

The researchers did not have A1c values for many of the more than 234,000 people in the entire registry who underwent COVID-19 testing from March 2020-May 2021 at the Cleveland Clinic, omissions that may have biased the study cohort.

This was a single-center study. Some patients may have received care outside of the center, hence records of those episodes could not be included.
 

Disclosures

The study received no commercial funding. Four authors received consulting and speaker honoraria and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept Therapeutics, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Three authors have intellectual property related to treatment decisionmaking in the context of type 2 diabetes.

This is a summary of a preprint research study “Impacts of COVID-19 on glycemia and risk of diabetic ketoacidosis,” written by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic on medRxiv. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.

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

Key takeaways

Results from a retrospective, observational, case-control study of more than 20,000 people from a single U.S. medical center showed a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c in people following COVID-19 infection, in both those with and without diabetes.

After people received a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, they were 40% more likely to also receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, compared with people who tested negative for COVID-19, a difference that was significant and could be explained by the increased medical care received by people who test positive for COVID-19.

The risk of incident diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among people who tested positive for COVID-19 was significantly higher among those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, those using insulin, and among Black individuals.
 

Why this matters

The authors said that their study is the first report of evidence that infection with COVID-19 affects A1c levels in a large, real-world clinical cohort.

Until now, the impact of COVID-19 infection on A1c remained unclear. Results from previous studies indicated that COVID-19 infection may increase A1c levels, but the studied cohorts were small and lacked uninfected controls.

The current study included 8,755 people infected with COVID-19, had data from both before and after the infection on diabetes status and A1c levels, and also included many matched, uninfected people who served as controls.
 

Study design

Data came from a Cleveland Clinic registry that included 81,093 people who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021 and 153,034 matched individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 during the same period.

The researchers retrospectively selected patients with an A1c recorded within 12 months before their COVID-19 test, as well as a second A1c value recorded within 12 months after COVID-19 testing. This produced a study cohort of 8,755 COVID-positive people and 11,998 matched people who tested negative for COVID-19.

To evaluate the risk of DKA onset after COVID-19 infection, the authors identified two sub-cohorts that excluded those with a history of DKA. The sub-cohorts were 701 people with type 1 diabetes and 21,830 with type 2 diabetes.
 

Key results

The investigators found a statistically significant but clinically insignificant A1c increase following a positive COVID-19 test, an average A1c increase of 0.06 percentage points. Those who tested negative for COVID-19 had a clinically insignificant change in their average A1c level that was of borderline statistical significance, an average increase of 0.02 percentage points (P = .05).

The statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c following infection with COVID-19 was similar in people with and without type 2 diabetes prior to infection.

In patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19, the researchers saw significant positive associations between higher A1c levels before infection and time to hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.07), need for assisted breathing (HR, 1.06), and ICU admission (HR, 1.07).

Following a COVID-19 infection, people were 40% more likely to receive a diagnosis of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with matched uninfected people. The authors said a possible explanation is that after diagnosis of COVID-19, infected people in general received more intensified care that led to better identification of those with underlying type 2 diabetes.

The 701 people included with pre-existing type 1 diabetes showed no significant difference in their rate of developing DKA between those infected and not infected with COVID-19.

Among the 21,830 people with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, the DKA risk was a significant 35% greater for those who were infected with COVID-19, compared with those who were uninfected. The magnitude of this increased relative risk was even higher among the patients with type 2 diabetes who used insulin as part of their treatment.  

The difference in DKA risk didn’t differ between Black and White patients who were not infected with COVID-19, but among those infected by COVID-19, Black patients were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with DKA, compared with White patients, a significant difference.

Black patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19 had a significant (63%) increased rate of DKA compared with Black patients with type 2 diabetes who remained uninfected.
 

Limitations

The study included patients with A1c measurements made up to 12 months prior to their COVID-19 test, and hence comorbid conditions, medication changes during this period, or other factors may have affected subsequent A1c levels. To address this, the authors also assessed outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals, which produced results consistent with the 12-month findings.

The researchers did not have A1c values for many of the more than 234,000 people in the entire registry who underwent COVID-19 testing from March 2020-May 2021 at the Cleveland Clinic, omissions that may have biased the study cohort.

This was a single-center study. Some patients may have received care outside of the center, hence records of those episodes could not be included.
 

Disclosures

The study received no commercial funding. Four authors received consulting and speaker honoraria and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept Therapeutics, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Three authors have intellectual property related to treatment decisionmaking in the context of type 2 diabetes.

This is a summary of a preprint research study “Impacts of COVID-19 on glycemia and risk of diabetic ketoacidosis,” written by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic on medRxiv. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.

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

Key takeaways

Results from a retrospective, observational, case-control study of more than 20,000 people from a single U.S. medical center showed a statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c in people following COVID-19 infection, in both those with and without diabetes.

After people received a diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, they were 40% more likely to also receive a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, compared with people who tested negative for COVID-19, a difference that was significant and could be explained by the increased medical care received by people who test positive for COVID-19.

The risk of incident diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) among people who tested positive for COVID-19 was significantly higher among those with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, those using insulin, and among Black individuals.
 

Why this matters

The authors said that their study is the first report of evidence that infection with COVID-19 affects A1c levels in a large, real-world clinical cohort.

Until now, the impact of COVID-19 infection on A1c remained unclear. Results from previous studies indicated that COVID-19 infection may increase A1c levels, but the studied cohorts were small and lacked uninfected controls.

The current study included 8,755 people infected with COVID-19, had data from both before and after the infection on diabetes status and A1c levels, and also included many matched, uninfected people who served as controls.
 

Study design

Data came from a Cleveland Clinic registry that included 81,093 people who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021 and 153,034 matched individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 during the same period.

The researchers retrospectively selected patients with an A1c recorded within 12 months before their COVID-19 test, as well as a second A1c value recorded within 12 months after COVID-19 testing. This produced a study cohort of 8,755 COVID-positive people and 11,998 matched people who tested negative for COVID-19.

To evaluate the risk of DKA onset after COVID-19 infection, the authors identified two sub-cohorts that excluded those with a history of DKA. The sub-cohorts were 701 people with type 1 diabetes and 21,830 with type 2 diabetes.
 

Key results

The investigators found a statistically significant but clinically insignificant A1c increase following a positive COVID-19 test, an average A1c increase of 0.06 percentage points. Those who tested negative for COVID-19 had a clinically insignificant change in their average A1c level that was of borderline statistical significance, an average increase of 0.02 percentage points (P = .05).

The statistically significant but clinically insignificant increase in A1c following infection with COVID-19 was similar in people with and without type 2 diabetes prior to infection.

In patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19, the researchers saw significant positive associations between higher A1c levels before infection and time to hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.07), need for assisted breathing (HR, 1.06), and ICU admission (HR, 1.07).

Following a COVID-19 infection, people were 40% more likely to receive a diagnosis of incident type 2 diabetes, compared with matched uninfected people. The authors said a possible explanation is that after diagnosis of COVID-19, infected people in general received more intensified care that led to better identification of those with underlying type 2 diabetes.

The 701 people included with pre-existing type 1 diabetes showed no significant difference in their rate of developing DKA between those infected and not infected with COVID-19.

Among the 21,830 people with pre-existing type 2 diabetes, the DKA risk was a significant 35% greater for those who were infected with COVID-19, compared with those who were uninfected. The magnitude of this increased relative risk was even higher among the patients with type 2 diabetes who used insulin as part of their treatment.  

The difference in DKA risk didn’t differ between Black and White patients who were not infected with COVID-19, but among those infected by COVID-19, Black patients were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with DKA, compared with White patients, a significant difference.

Black patients with type 2 diabetes who became infected with COVID-19 had a significant (63%) increased rate of DKA compared with Black patients with type 2 diabetes who remained uninfected.
 

Limitations

The study included patients with A1c measurements made up to 12 months prior to their COVID-19 test, and hence comorbid conditions, medication changes during this period, or other factors may have affected subsequent A1c levels. To address this, the authors also assessed outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals, which produced results consistent with the 12-month findings.

The researchers did not have A1c values for many of the more than 234,000 people in the entire registry who underwent COVID-19 testing from March 2020-May 2021 at the Cleveland Clinic, omissions that may have biased the study cohort.

This was a single-center study. Some patients may have received care outside of the center, hence records of those episodes could not be included.
 

Disclosures

The study received no commercial funding. Four authors received consulting and speaker honoraria and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept Therapeutics, Diasome, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Three authors have intellectual property related to treatment decisionmaking in the context of type 2 diabetes.

This is a summary of a preprint research study “Impacts of COVID-19 on glycemia and risk of diabetic ketoacidosis,” written by researchers at the Cleveland Clinic on medRxiv. The study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on medRxiv.org.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While several health care professionals can perform some of the same functions as physicians, at the end of the day, they are not MDs or DOs, nor do they have the education and training to earn the right to present themselves to patients as such. That’s the reasoning behind Senate Bill 239, recently signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric J. Holcomb.

“It’s about transparency. Health care professionals at every level should be proud of their profession and want to help patients make an informed choice when seeking out options for treatment,” Carrie Davis, MD, a Bloomington, Ind.–based dermatologist and member of the Indiana State Medical Association’s commission on legislation, told this news organization. “When this law goes into effect, a patient will be able to seek that treatment with confidence knowing they can trust the education, training, and license of the health care expert they’ve chosen to see.”

The patient safety measure, which will take effect on July 1, specifically prohibits the misappropriation of medical specialty titles such as anesthesiologist, cardiologist, dermatologist, and others by professionals who have not graduated from medical school and completed the necessary training to adopt the physician title. It also prohibits health care professionals from using deceptive or misleading advertising that misrepresents or falsely describes their profession, education, or skills.

“Using the medical term ‘anesthesiologist’ for nurse anesthetists, confuses patients who deserve to be fully informed of their health care provider’s qualifications,” Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), said in a statement. “This new law affirms the most fundamental right of patients to know the qualifications of their health care professional.”
 

What’s in a title?

The problem stretches far beyond professional turf battles, as patients are often confused about the differences between various types of health care providers, according to the American Medical Association’s Truth in Advertising Campaign. Often, patients mistakenly believe they are meeting with medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine when they are not.

Seung Sim, MD, an Indiana anesthesiologist and the immediate past president of the Indiana Society of Anesthesiologists, said in an interview that every member of the medical team plays an important role in high-quality patient care, but among that team, education and training differs.

“The threat to patient safety comes by nonphysicians marketing themselves in a way that is confusing to patients, and misleading, making the patient believe they’re seeing a physician when they’re not,” said Dr. Sim. “That patient deserves to know who is providing their health care and what level of education and training they have, so the patient can make the best decision for their treatment.”
 

Medical groups speak out

Several professional medical groups have voiced their opposition to medical title misappropriation.

Perhaps most notably, the ASA has been spearheading efforts that prohibit medical professionals to identify as physicians for several years. In 2019, the ASA authored Resolution 228, which calls on the AMA to oppose and work with state medical societies to prevent the misappropriation of medical specialties’ titles.

The resolution, which was adopted by the AMA in June 2019, also reaffirms support of the Scope of Practice Partnership’s Truth in Advertising Campaign to ensure patients receive accurate information about who is providing their care.

In addition, in 2021, the ASA condemned the decision by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists to change its name to the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (AANA) – pointing out that the term “nurse anesthesiologist” could confuse patients and create discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.

While the ASA and other professional groups support team-based models of care, they are quick to point out that health care professionals need to know their place in the lineup.

A statement from the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), for instance, points out that only DOs and MDs can be licensed to practice medicine – and, therefore, “physician-led” should not mean “physician-optional.” In fact, only professionals who have earned the right to practice medicine through completion of medical school and accredited residency/fellowship training and who have achieved board certification in their chosen specialty/subspecialty should take the helm of these multidisciplinary teams, according to the AOA.

The AANA cast the controversy in a completely different light, characterizing its name change as part of a rebranding effort to advance the science of nurse anesthesiology and advocate for certified registered nurse anesthetists. In 2021, the AANA asserted: “The notion of being pushed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists that rebranding and changing the name of the AANA will somehow mislead or harm patients or create discord among providers is absurd at best and false and inflammatory fearmongering at worst.”

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

While several health care professionals can perform some of the same functions as physicians, at the end of the day, they are not MDs or DOs, nor do they have the education and training to earn the right to present themselves to patients as such. That’s the reasoning behind Senate Bill 239, recently signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric J. Holcomb.

“It’s about transparency. Health care professionals at every level should be proud of their profession and want to help patients make an informed choice when seeking out options for treatment,” Carrie Davis, MD, a Bloomington, Ind.–based dermatologist and member of the Indiana State Medical Association’s commission on legislation, told this news organization. “When this law goes into effect, a patient will be able to seek that treatment with confidence knowing they can trust the education, training, and license of the health care expert they’ve chosen to see.”

The patient safety measure, which will take effect on July 1, specifically prohibits the misappropriation of medical specialty titles such as anesthesiologist, cardiologist, dermatologist, and others by professionals who have not graduated from medical school and completed the necessary training to adopt the physician title. It also prohibits health care professionals from using deceptive or misleading advertising that misrepresents or falsely describes their profession, education, or skills.

“Using the medical term ‘anesthesiologist’ for nurse anesthetists, confuses patients who deserve to be fully informed of their health care provider’s qualifications,” Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), said in a statement. “This new law affirms the most fundamental right of patients to know the qualifications of their health care professional.”
 

What’s in a title?

The problem stretches far beyond professional turf battles, as patients are often confused about the differences between various types of health care providers, according to the American Medical Association’s Truth in Advertising Campaign. Often, patients mistakenly believe they are meeting with medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine when they are not.

Seung Sim, MD, an Indiana anesthesiologist and the immediate past president of the Indiana Society of Anesthesiologists, said in an interview that every member of the medical team plays an important role in high-quality patient care, but among that team, education and training differs.

“The threat to patient safety comes by nonphysicians marketing themselves in a way that is confusing to patients, and misleading, making the patient believe they’re seeing a physician when they’re not,” said Dr. Sim. “That patient deserves to know who is providing their health care and what level of education and training they have, so the patient can make the best decision for their treatment.”
 

Medical groups speak out

Several professional medical groups have voiced their opposition to medical title misappropriation.

Perhaps most notably, the ASA has been spearheading efforts that prohibit medical professionals to identify as physicians for several years. In 2019, the ASA authored Resolution 228, which calls on the AMA to oppose and work with state medical societies to prevent the misappropriation of medical specialties’ titles.

The resolution, which was adopted by the AMA in June 2019, also reaffirms support of the Scope of Practice Partnership’s Truth in Advertising Campaign to ensure patients receive accurate information about who is providing their care.

In addition, in 2021, the ASA condemned the decision by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists to change its name to the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (AANA) – pointing out that the term “nurse anesthesiologist” could confuse patients and create discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.

While the ASA and other professional groups support team-based models of care, they are quick to point out that health care professionals need to know their place in the lineup.

A statement from the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), for instance, points out that only DOs and MDs can be licensed to practice medicine – and, therefore, “physician-led” should not mean “physician-optional.” In fact, only professionals who have earned the right to practice medicine through completion of medical school and accredited residency/fellowship training and who have achieved board certification in their chosen specialty/subspecialty should take the helm of these multidisciplinary teams, according to the AOA.

The AANA cast the controversy in a completely different light, characterizing its name change as part of a rebranding effort to advance the science of nurse anesthesiology and advocate for certified registered nurse anesthetists. In 2021, the AANA asserted: “The notion of being pushed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists that rebranding and changing the name of the AANA will somehow mislead or harm patients or create discord among providers is absurd at best and false and inflammatory fearmongering at worst.”

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

While several health care professionals can perform some of the same functions as physicians, at the end of the day, they are not MDs or DOs, nor do they have the education and training to earn the right to present themselves to patients as such. That’s the reasoning behind Senate Bill 239, recently signed into law by Indiana Gov. Eric J. Holcomb.

“It’s about transparency. Health care professionals at every level should be proud of their profession and want to help patients make an informed choice when seeking out options for treatment,” Carrie Davis, MD, a Bloomington, Ind.–based dermatologist and member of the Indiana State Medical Association’s commission on legislation, told this news organization. “When this law goes into effect, a patient will be able to seek that treatment with confidence knowing they can trust the education, training, and license of the health care expert they’ve chosen to see.”

The patient safety measure, which will take effect on July 1, specifically prohibits the misappropriation of medical specialty titles such as anesthesiologist, cardiologist, dermatologist, and others by professionals who have not graduated from medical school and completed the necessary training to adopt the physician title. It also prohibits health care professionals from using deceptive or misleading advertising that misrepresents or falsely describes their profession, education, or skills.

“Using the medical term ‘anesthesiologist’ for nurse anesthetists, confuses patients who deserve to be fully informed of their health care provider’s qualifications,” Randall M. Clark, MD, president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), said in a statement. “This new law affirms the most fundamental right of patients to know the qualifications of their health care professional.”
 

What’s in a title?

The problem stretches far beyond professional turf battles, as patients are often confused about the differences between various types of health care providers, according to the American Medical Association’s Truth in Advertising Campaign. Often, patients mistakenly believe they are meeting with medical doctors or doctors of osteopathic medicine when they are not.

Seung Sim, MD, an Indiana anesthesiologist and the immediate past president of the Indiana Society of Anesthesiologists, said in an interview that every member of the medical team plays an important role in high-quality patient care, but among that team, education and training differs.

“The threat to patient safety comes by nonphysicians marketing themselves in a way that is confusing to patients, and misleading, making the patient believe they’re seeing a physician when they’re not,” said Dr. Sim. “That patient deserves to know who is providing their health care and what level of education and training they have, so the patient can make the best decision for their treatment.”
 

Medical groups speak out

Several professional medical groups have voiced their opposition to medical title misappropriation.

Perhaps most notably, the ASA has been spearheading efforts that prohibit medical professionals to identify as physicians for several years. In 2019, the ASA authored Resolution 228, which calls on the AMA to oppose and work with state medical societies to prevent the misappropriation of medical specialties’ titles.

The resolution, which was adopted by the AMA in June 2019, also reaffirms support of the Scope of Practice Partnership’s Truth in Advertising Campaign to ensure patients receive accurate information about who is providing their care.

In addition, in 2021, the ASA condemned the decision by the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists to change its name to the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (AANA) – pointing out that the term “nurse anesthesiologist” could confuse patients and create discord in the care setting, ultimately risking patient safety.

While the ASA and other professional groups support team-based models of care, they are quick to point out that health care professionals need to know their place in the lineup.

A statement from the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), for instance, points out that only DOs and MDs can be licensed to practice medicine – and, therefore, “physician-led” should not mean “physician-optional.” In fact, only professionals who have earned the right to practice medicine through completion of medical school and accredited residency/fellowship training and who have achieved board certification in their chosen specialty/subspecialty should take the helm of these multidisciplinary teams, according to the AOA.

The AANA cast the controversy in a completely different light, characterizing its name change as part of a rebranding effort to advance the science of nurse anesthesiology and advocate for certified registered nurse anesthetists. In 2021, the AANA asserted: “The notion of being pushed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists that rebranding and changing the name of the AANA will somehow mislead or harm patients or create discord among providers is absurd at best and false and inflammatory fearmongering at worst.”

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