User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Second U.S. COVID-19 case caused by Omicron found
A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.
The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before. He sought testing on Nov. 24. His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health. The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.
He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.
“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”
The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.
This breaking news story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.
The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before. He sought testing on Nov. 24. His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health. The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.
He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.
“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”
The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.
This breaking news story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A second U.S. case of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron variant has been picked up by genetic testing in Minnesota.
The man, from Hennepin County, Minn., fell ill on Nov. 22 after attending the Anime NYC 2021 conference at the Javits Center in New York City a few days before. He sought testing on Nov. 24. His symptoms have resolved, according to a press release on the case from the Minnesota Department of Health. The man was fully vaccinated, the department said.
He was advised to isolate from others, but it’s unclear if he had contact with anyone else before he learning he was infected.
“This news is concerning, but it is not a surprise,” said Governor Tim Walz in a news release. “We know that this virus is highly infectious and moves quickly throughout the world. Minnesotans know what to do to keep each other safe now — get the vaccine, get tested, wear a mask indoors, and get a booster. Together, we can fight this virus and help keep Minnesotans safe,”
The first case of COVID-19 caused by Omicron was detected Dec. 1 in California. That case was in a traveler who had recently returned from South Africa.
This breaking news story will be updated.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Retinopathy risk in children higher in T2D than T1D
Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.
Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.
“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.
The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.
The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.
The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.
These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.
“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.
“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.
While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.
She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”
Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.
“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.
Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.
This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.
Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.
“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.
The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.
The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.
The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.
These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.
“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.
“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.
While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.
She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”
Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.
“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.
Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.
This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.
Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.
“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.
The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.
The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.
The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.
These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.
“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.
“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth
In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.
While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.
She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”
Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.
“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.
Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.
This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
AHA statement on impact of major life events on physical activity
Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.
The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.
The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.
“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.
The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
Some more vulnerable than others
The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.
The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.
They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.
“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.
“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.
The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”
The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.
This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.
The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.
The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.
“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.
The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
Some more vulnerable than others
The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.
The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.
They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.
“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.
“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.
The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”
The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.
This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physical activity levels may decline during major life events, and it’s important for health care professionals to encourage patients to maintain regular physical activity during times of significant changes in their lives, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
With this statement, “We hope health care providers, public health workers, and individuals understand that a major life change can lead to decreases in physical activity or increases in sedentary behavior,” writing group chair Abbi D. Lane-Cordova, PhD, said in an interview.
The statement includes “tips for screening for physical activity and talking to people about their activity during these big life events and resources that can be used by health care providers to help people achieve healthy levels of physical activity,” said Dr. Lane-Cordova, assistant professor in exercise science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
The statement was published online Dec. 1 in the journal Circulation.
The AHA Committee on Physical Activity, part of the organization’s Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, began discussing this topic back in 2019, Dr. Lane-Cordova explained.
“We spoke as a group about how much activity levels can change when something big happens in life, like becoming a parent or retiring. The change in activity behavior (physical activity or sedentary behavior) is important because these activity behaviors can influence heart health,” she said.
The group started work on the scientific statement in early 2020 – “and then the pandemic hit, and it seemed more important than ever to create awareness and a resource for people to help improve, or at least maintain, favorable activity behaviors when there’s a profound change or event in life,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said.
Some more vulnerable than others
The writing group examined data on 17 different life events or transitions and found evidence that physical activity levels may decline during nine events: beginning a new school (elementary, middle, high school, or college); a first job or career change; a marriage or civil union; pregnancy; parenting; retirement; or moving into a long-term care facility.
The authors also identified individuals who may be particularly susceptible to lower levels of physical activity in general and during important life events. They include those with lower levels of education; those who live alone; those who lack access to a safe outdoor space; Black Americans; some members of the LGBTQ+ community; and women who are pregnant and new parents.
They offer practical strategies for health care professionals to support routine physical activity levels during major life events and transitions. These include asking simple questions about how life transitions may be changing physical activity patterns and encouraging the use of wearable step trackers to monitor levels and changes.
“It’s important to maintain or improve physical activity when major life events happen, which is often a time when exercise is most needed,” Dr. Lane-Cordova said in a news release.
“Clinicians should express compassion as they ask about life transitions and initiate conversations about physical activity during life events and transitions,” the writing group advises.
The group also says its important “to look beyond the health care setting and engage organizations, communities, workplaces, faith-based communities, and assisted living facilities to promote physical activity.”
The statement provides a list of resources for individuals and health care professionals, many of which are free and online.
This research had no commercial funding. Members of the writing group have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Misinterpretation is a science, not an art
It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear
We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?
Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.
Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.
In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.
That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.
Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
Singing … your … lungs … out
There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.
A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.
After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.
So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
And the word of the year is …
Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.
We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”
Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.
Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!
It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear
We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?
Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.
Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.
In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.
That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.
Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
Singing … your … lungs … out
There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.
A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.
After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.
So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
And the word of the year is …
Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.
We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”
Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.
Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!
It isn’t autocorrect’s fault this time, we swear
We’ve come a long way with communication technology. Back in the day, when Gondor needed to call for aid, they had to pull off the greatest signal fire montage of all time. Now we can send each other texts back and forth in an instant. (“Hey Theoden, send army, need help pls” doesn’t quite have the same gravitas though.) The question is, how do our brains keep up with such rapidly advancing technology?
Er, they don’t. Not really. Instead, our brains create shortcuts called “good-enough language processing,” which is exactly what it sounds like.
Psychologists and psycholinguists have been studying misinterpretations such as good-enough language processing since the 1970s. Recently, however, psycholinguists from the Centre for Language and Brain at Higher School of Economics in Moscow have found that, when it comes to reading comprehension over text, older adults are using their knowledge of the world over how it’s grammatically formed in the sentence.
In the study, 349 people were asked to read and interpret four sentences, the third of which (translated from Russian) was: “Misha met the firefighter’s dentist, who had put out a fire in the warehouse.” When asked who put the fire out, 79% of older adults (aged 55 years and older), utilizing good-enough language processing, said the firefighter put out the fire. You probably glossed over that sentence and assumed the same thing. But this time, the dentist was the real hero.
That said, adolescents (aged 13-17) and young adults (aged 20-30) weren’t much better, and got that particular sentence wrong 63%-68% of the time. According to the researchers, good-enough language processing forms in adolescence and intensifies throughout adulthood.
Moral of the story? We should utilize signal fires more often. Less room for misinterpretation. When the beacons of Minas Tirith were lit, Rohan answered.
Singing … your … lungs … out
There’s nothing quite like a karaoke bar to unleash your inner rock star. Hey, why not just go for it, everyone is just as bad at singing as you. That’s part of the fun.
A 25-year-old man named Wang Zhe may have taken the karaoke concept a bit too far, however. While out with friends at a birthday party, Mr. Zhe let loose on a song with a particularly large number of high notes. He tried his best, gamely attacking the song until he felt a pain in his chest. He didn’t think much of it, although he did cut his performance short, but then he awoke the next morning unable to breathe properly.
After a trip to the hospital, he explained the sequence of events to the doctors, and an x-ray found that the culprit of the pain and difficulty breathing was a life-threatening condition in which air bubbles are created between the chest and lung. All the force Mr. Zhe had used trying to sing made air sacks in his lung burst, causing the air bubbles and his lung to be compressed to 15% of what it should be. Mr. Zhe needed surgery to remove the air bubbles, but fortunately turned out just fine.
So, if you’re ever at a karaoke bar, looking for a song to sing, maybe avoid the ones with super high notes and stick with something a little lower. We’re picturing something like Paul Robeson singing Ol’ Man River. That oughta do the trick.
And the word of the year is …
Flibbertigibbet. Bamboozle. Gobbledygook. If the LOTME staff had any say, those would be the words of the year every year, but sadly, we’re not in charge of such things. Instead, we’ll just have to defer to Oxford and Merriam-Webster, both of whom have recently chosen their words of the year. No word yet on whether or not they made their announcement at a red carpet gala dinner attended by all the most fashionable and powerful words out there, but we’re hoping that’s what happened.
We’ll start with Oxford, since they did choose first. We all know Oxford is the bad boy of the dictionary world, so they’ve chosen a casual colloquialism related to the big COVID-sized elephant in the room (or should it be elephant-sized COVID in the room?): Vax. According to them, while vax has been hanging around since the 1980s, it’s only been in the past year that it’s exploded in popularity in a wide range of contexts (we can’t imagine what those would be). According to Oxford, “as a short pithy word, it appeals, perhaps especially to media commentators, when more formal alternatives are much more long-winded.”
Speaking of long-winded, that brings us to Merriam-Webster, the sheltered nerd of the dictionary world. Clearly they’re too good for vax, so they’ve gone with vaccine as their 2021 word of the year. Vaccine, according to Merriam-Webster, carries two big stories: The impressive and herculean feat of bringing a COVID-19 vaccine so quickly to so many people, and the complex political and social upheaval between vaccine supporters and deniers.
Vaccine also serves as a great bookend for Merriam-Webster’s 2020 word of the year: Pandemic. In 2020, the pandemic started, and in 2021, thanks to the vaccine, the pandemic ends. That’s how it works, right? We have a vaccine, it’s all over now. What’s that? Omicron? No! Bad COVID! You do that outside, not on the carpet!
SGLT2 inhibitor use tied to fewer atrial arrhythmias
Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.
The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).
In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?
“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”
The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.
The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.
The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.
At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).
Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.
The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias
A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.
The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.
On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.
A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.
The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.
In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.
Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.
The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).
In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?
“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”
The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.
The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.
The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.
At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).
Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.
The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias
A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.
The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.
On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.
A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.
The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.
In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.
Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) who received treatment with an sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor had significantly fewer atrial arrhythmia events, compared with those who never received such a drug, in a prospective analysis of nearly 14,000 patients with a device who were followed for an average of nearly 2 years.
The findings suggest that use of an agent from the class of SGLT2 inhibitors “is associated with a pronounced reduction in atrial arrhythmia burden and all-cause mortality in patients with a CIED in a real-world setting,” said Ilan Goldenberg, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. “These data indicate possible antiarrhythmic properties of SGLT2 inhibitors that are incremental to the beneficial effects of the drug on heart failure outcomes,” added Dr. Goldenberg, director of the Clinical Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Rochester (N.Y.).
In a propensity score–matched analysis that included more than 5,000 of the enrolled patients with a CIED, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to a significant 23% relative reduction in atrial arrhythmia events and a 44% relative drop in all-cause death, he reported.
Effect mediated by reduced left atrial pressure?
“Other heart failure drugs have shown some decrease in the rate of sudden cardiac death, but this is the first [heart failure] drug to associate with a reduction in atrial arrhythmias,” Dr. Goldenberg noted. “We think that a reduction in left atrial pressure” produced by treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor “may be linked to the reduction in atrial arrhythmias.”
The study did not show an association of SGLT2-inhibitor use and a change in ventricular arrhythmias, compared with patients with CIEDs who did not receive an agent from this class.
The findings suggest “expanding the possible indications for SGLT2 inhibitors,” commented Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who moderated the session where Dr. Goldenberg gave his report.
The study included 13,890 consecutive, prospectively enrolled patients who received a CIED during January 2015–April 2020 at any of five hospitals operated by either of two tertiary health care systems, one run by the University of Rochester and the second based at Sheba Medical Center in Tel HaShomer, Israel. The devices that made patients eligible for the study included permanent pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and implantable cardiac monitors. A blinded adjudication committee composed of electrophysiologists identified the arrhythmic episodes.
At entry into the study (the time of device implantation), 12,992 patients were not receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor (94%) and 898 (6%) were receiving a drug from this class. Of those, 39% were on dapagliflozin (Farxiga), 35% were on empagliflozin (Jardiance), and 26% were on canagliflozin (Invokana).
Patients receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline were on average substantially younger than the patients not on this drug class (59 years vs. 69 years); they had a substantially higher prevalence of diabetes (78% vs. 25%), and ischemic cardiomyopathy (63% vs. 39%). Patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline also had more modestly higher prevalence rates of prior heart failure (38% vs. 31%), and hypertension (69% vs. 63%). Prevalence of a history of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was nearly the same in both groups: 31% in patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor and 35% in those not on these drugs.
The study’s primary endpoint was the total number of arrhythmia events during follow-up of 24,442 patient-years, during which patients exhibited 19,633 atrial arrhythmia events and 3,231 ventricular arrhythmia events.
1% absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias
A multivariate analysis of the entire population – adjusted for baseline differences in age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib – showed that treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was linked with a significant 24% relative reduction in incident atrial arrhythmia events, a significant 24% reduction in both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia events, and a 42% relative reduction in all-cause deaths, compared with no SGLT2-inhibitor treatment.
The only analyzed endpoint that showed no significant between-group difference was incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, which was a relative 7% lower in the SGLT2-inhibitor group.
On an absolute basis, treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor was tied to about a 1% lower rate of atrial arrhythmia events per year, a reduction from a 2.5% rate in those not on an SGLT2 inhibitor to about a 1.5% rate in those taking this drug class.
A second, confirmatory analysis used propensity score matching to identify 5,323 patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline who closely matched the 898 patients on an SGLT2 inhibitor. The multivariate modeling for this analysis also adjusted for age, diabetes, sex, and history of AFib.
The results of these analyses closely matched the calculations that used the entire study population. Relative to patients not on an SGLT2 inhibitor those on a drug from this class had 23% fewer atrial arrhythmias, 44% fewer total death, and 22% fewer atrial or ventricular arrhythmias, all significant differences. However, ventricular arrhythmias only reduced by a relative 5%, a nonsignificant difference.
In the propensity score–matched analysis, the absolute reduction in atrial arrhythmias in those on an SGLT2 inhibitor at baseline was roughly 1.3% fewer per year, compared with those not on this drug class.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant to the University of Rochester from AstraZeneca, the company that markets the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Goldenberg and Dr. Van Spall had no disclosures.
FROM AHA 2021
First Omicron variant case identified in U.S.
He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.
“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said.
The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”
Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.
The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.
It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.
“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said.
The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”
Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.
The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.
It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
He or she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and experienced only “mild symptoms that are improving,” officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
The patient, who was not named in the CDC’s announcement of the first U.S. case of the Omicron variant Dec. 1, is self-quarantining.
“All close contacts have been contacted and have tested negative,” officials said.
The announcement comes as no surprise to many as the Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa, has been reported in countries around the world in recent days. Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and Germany each reported this variant, as have Italy and the Netherlands. Over the weekend, the first North American cases were identified in Canada.
Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, announced over the weekend that this newest variant was likely already in the United States, telling ABC’s This Week its appearance here was “inevitable.”
Similar to previous variants, this new strain likely started circulating in the United States before scientists could do genetic tests to confirm its presence.
The World Health Organization named Omicron a “variant of concern” on Nov. 26, even though much remains unknown about how well it spreads, how severe it can be, and how it may resist vaccines. In the meantime, the United States enacted travel bans from multiple South African countries.
It remains to be seen if Omicron will follow the pattern of the Delta variant, which was first identified in the United States in May and became the dominant strain by July. It’s also possible it will follow the path taken by the Mu variant. Mu emerged in March and April to much concern, only to fizzle out by September because it was unable to compete with the Delta variant.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Moderna warns of material drop in vaccine efficacy against Omicron
“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .
“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”
Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.
Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.
“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”
The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.
“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.
Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.
Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.
The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.
“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.
The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.
“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .
“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”
Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.
Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.
“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”
The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.
“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.
Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.
Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.
The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.
“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.
The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.
“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“There is no world, I think, where [the effectiveness] is the same level … we had with Delta,” Stephane Bancel told the Financial Times .
“I think it’s going to be a material drop,” he said. “I just don’t know how much, because we need to wait for the data. But all the scientists I’ve talked to … are like, ‘This is not going to be good.’”
Vaccine companies are now studying whether the new Omicron variant could evade the current shots. Some data is expected in about 2 weeks.
Mr. Bancel said that if a new vaccine is needed, it could take several months to produce at scale. He estimated that Moderna could make billions of vaccine doses in 2022.
“[Moderna] and Pfizer cannot get a billion doses next week. The math doesn’t work,” he said. “But could we get the billion doses out by the summer? Sure.”
The news caused some panic on Nov. 30, prompting financial markets to fall sharply, according to Reuters. But the markets recovered after European officials gave a more reassuring outlook.
“Even if the new variant becomes more widespread, the vaccines we have will continue to provide protection,” Emer Cooke, executive director of the European Medicines Agency, told the European Parliament.
Mr. Cooke said the agency could approve new vaccines that target the Omicron variant within 3 to 4 months, if needed. Moderna and Pfizer have announced they are beginning to tailor a shot to address the Omicron variant in case the data shows they are necessary.
Also on Nov. 30, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control announced that 42 Omicron cases had been identified in 10 European Union countries, according to Reuters.
The cases were mild or had no symptoms, although they were found in younger people who may have mild or no symptoms anyway.
“For the assessment of whether [Omicron] escapes immunity, we still have to wait until investigations in the laboratories with [blood samples] from people who have recovered have been carried out,” Andrea Ammon, MD, chair of the agency, said during an online conference.
The University of Oxford, which developed a COVID-19 vaccine with AstraZeneca, said Nov. 30 that there’s no evidence that vaccines won’t prevent severe disease from the Omicron variant, according to Reuters.
“Despite the appearance of new variants over the past year, vaccines have continued to provide very high levels of protection against severe disease and there is no evidence so far that Omicron is any different,” the university said in a statement. “However, we have the necessary tools and processes in place for rapid development of an updated COVID-19 vaccine if it should be necessary.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Fauci: Omicron ‘very different from other variants’
The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.
Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.
“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”
Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.
Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.
Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.
Cross-protection from boosters
Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.
“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.
“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.
So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.
“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.
He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.
“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”
A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.
The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.
Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.
“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”
Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.
Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.
Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.
Cross-protection from boosters
Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.
“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.
“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.
So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.
“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.
He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.
“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”
A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.
The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.
Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.
“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”
Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.
Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.
Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.
Cross-protection from boosters
Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.
“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.
“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.
So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.
“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.
He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.
“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”
A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA panel backs first pill for COVID-19 by a small margin
, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.
The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.
The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.
If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.
The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.
“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.
Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.
“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.
Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.
“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.
Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.
In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.
On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.
The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.
“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.
“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.
Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.
There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.
Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.
Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.
Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.
Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.
The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.
But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.
Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.
So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.
Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.
“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.
“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.
He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.
“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.
Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.
“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.
The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.
The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.
If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.
The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.
“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.
Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.
“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.
Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.
“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.
Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.
In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.
On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.
The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.
“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.
“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.
Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.
There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.
Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.
Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.
Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.
Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.
The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.
But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.
Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.
So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.
Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.
“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.
“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.
He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.
“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.
Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.
“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, according to a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on its regulatory decisions for these types of drugs.
The FDA’s Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee narrowly voted to authorize the drug molnupiravir, voting 13 to 10 to support emergency use, which requires a medication to meet a lower standard of evidence than does full approval.
The FDA is not bound by the committee’s vote but typically follows its advice.
If authorized by the agency, molnupiravir would be the first antiviral agent available as a pill to treat COVID-19. Other therapies to treat the infection are available — monoclonal antibodies and the drug remdesivir — but they are given by infusion.
The United Kingdom has already authorized the use of Merck’s drug.
“This was clearly a difficult decision,” said committee member Michael Green, MD, a pediatric infectious disease expert at the University of Pittsburg School of Medicine.
Green said he voted yes, and that the drug’s ability to prevent deaths in the study weighed heavily on his decision. He said given uncertainties around the drug both the company and FDA should keep a close eye on patients taking the drug going forward.
“Should an alternative oral agent become available that had a better safety profile and equal or better efficacy profile, the agency might reconsider its authorization,” he said.
Others didn’t agree that the drug should be allowed onto the market.
“I voted no,” said Jennifer Le, PharmD, a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California. Dr. Le said the modest benefit of the medication didn’t outweigh all the potential safety issues. “I think I just need more efficacy and safety data,” she said.
Initial results from the first half of people enrolled in the clinical trial found the pill cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
But later results, released just days before the meeting, showed that the drug’s effectiveness had dropped to about 30%.
In the updated analysis, 48 patients out of the 709 who were taking the drug were hospitalized or died within 29 days compared to 68 out of 699 who randomly got the placebo. There was one death in the group that got molnupiravir compared to nine in the placebo group. Nearly all those deaths occurred during the first phase of the study.
On Nov. 30 Merck explained that the drug’s efficacy appeared to fall, in part, because the placebo group had experienced fewer hospitalizations and deaths than expected during the second half of the study, making the drug look less beneficial by comparison.
The company said it wasn’t sure why patients in the placebo group had fared so much better in later trial enrollments.
“The efficacy of this product is not overwhelmingly good,” said committee member David Hardy, MD, an infectious disease expert at Charles Drew University School of Medicine in Los Angeles. “And I think that makes all of us a little uncomfortable about whether this is an advanced therapeutic because it’s an oral medication rather than an intravenous medication,” he said during the panel’s deliberations.
“I think we have to be very careful about how we’re going to allow people to use this,” Dr. Hardy said.
Many who voted for authorization thought use of the drug should be restricted to unvaccinated people who were at high risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, the same population enrolled in the clinical trial. People in the trial were considered at higher risk if they were over age 60, had cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were obese, or had heart disease or diabetes.
There are some significant limitations of the study that may affect how the drug is used. Vaccinated people couldn’t enroll in the study, so it’s not known if the medication would have any benefit for them. Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The study found no additional benefit of the medication compared to the placebo in people who had detectable antibodies, presumably from a prior infection.
Animal studies found that the drug — which kills the virus by forcing it to make errors as it copies its genetic material inside cells — could disrupt bone formation. For that reason, the manufacturer and the FDA agreed that it should not be used in anyone younger than age 18.
Animal studies also indicated that the drug could cause birth defects. For that reason, the company said the drug shouldn’t be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding and said doctors should make sure women of childbearing age aren’t pregnant before taking the medication.
Some members of the panel felt that pregnant women and their doctors should be given the choice of whether or not to use the drug, given that pregnant women are at high risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes and infused therapies may not be available in all settings.
Other members of the committee said they were uncomfortable authorizing the drug given its potential to mutate the virus.
The drug, which forces the virus to mutate as it copies its RNA, eventually causes the virus to make so many errors in its genetic material that it can no longer make more of itself and the immune system clears it out of the body.
But it takes a few days to work — the drug is designed to be taken for 5 consecutive days -- and studies of the viral loads of patients taking the drug show that through the first 2 days, viral loads remain detectable as these mutations occur.
Studies by the FDA show some of those mutations in the spike protein are the same ones that have helped the virus become more transmissible and escape the protection of vaccines.
So the question is whether someone taking the medication could develop a dangerous mutation and then infect someone else, sparking the spread of a new variant.
Nicholas Kartsonis, MD, a vice president at Merck, said that the company was still analyzing data.
“Even if the probability is very low — 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 -- that this drug would induce an escape mutant for which the vaccines we have would not cover, that would be catastrophic for the whole world, actually,” said committee member James Hildreth, MD, an immunologist and president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville. “Do you have sufficient data on the likelihood of that happening?” he asked Dr. Kartsonis of Merck.
“So we don’t,” Dr. Kartsonis said.
He said, in theory, the risk of mutation with molnupiravir is the same as seen with the use of vaccines or monoclonal antibody therapies. Dr. Hildreth wasn’t satisfied with that answer.
“With all respect, the mechanism of your drug is to drive [genetic mutations], so it’s not the same as the vaccine. It’s not the same as monoclonal antibodies,” he said.
Dr. Hildreth later said he didn’t feel comfortable voting for authorization given the uncertainties around escape mutants. He voted no.
“It was an easy vote for me,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Could an oral PCSK9 inhibitor be on the horizon?
The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.
In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.
The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.
In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.
Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.
Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.
Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”
Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.
“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.
“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.
But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”
In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.
Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.
In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.
LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.
There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”
These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”
The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.
In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.
The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.
In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.
Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.
Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.
Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”
Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.
“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.
“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.
But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”
In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.
Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.
In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.
LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.
There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”
These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”
The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that Merck showcased recently would be more than a “me-too” drug if it ultimately wins approval, despite competition from several approved agents that slash elevated cholesterol levels by targeting the same protein.
In fact, it would be something of a breakthrough. The new agent under study – now called MK-0616 – comes in pill form, in contrast to the three currently available PCSK9-lowering drugs that must be given in injections separated by weeks to months.
The drug faces an uncertain road to regulatory review and any approval, but MK-0616 at least seems to be starting out in the right direction.
In two phase 1 studies with a total of 100 participants, plasma PCSK9 levels plunged more than 90% after a single dose of the drug; and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels dropped about 65% when MK-0616 was given daily for 2 weeks on a background of statin therapy.
Moreover, “MK-0616 was generally well tolerated at up to and including single doses of 300 milligrams,” the maximum tested in the studies, Douglas G. Johns, PhD, reported at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The collective results from the oral agent’s earliest human experience are “definitely encouraging” and support MK-0616 as a potential LDL-lowering agent that would be more convenient and arguably more accessible to patients compared to current injectable PCSK9 inhibitors, proposed Dr. Johns, clinical director of translational medicine for Merck in Kenilworth, N.J.
Available PCSK9-targeting agents include alirocumab (Praluent, Sanofi/Regeneron), Food and Drug Administration–approved in July 2015, and evolocumab (Repatha, Amgen), approved by the agency the following month. Both are monoclonal antibodies with neutralizing specificity for the PCSK9 protein; whereas the third such agent, inclisiran (Leqvio, Novartis) is a small-molecule interfering-RNA that suppresses PCSK9 synthesis. Inclisiran is approved in the European Union but its case to the FDA was turned down in 2020.
Dr. Johns said MK-0616 is a cyclic peptide that is “about one-hundredth the size of a monoclonal antibody, but we’re able to achieve monoclonal antibody-like potency and selectivity with this much smaller footprint.”
Added to statin therapy, the current PCSK9-targeting agents reduce LDL-C by an additional one-half or more, and the two antibody-based agents “also decrease atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. They are, however, expensive and not always available, requiring insurance or other approval,” observed Anne C. Goldberg, MD, as invited discussant after Dr. Johns’ presentation.
“They require every 2- to 4-week injections. They’re generally reserved for secondary prevention, and sometimes primary prevention as in familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Goldberg, of Washington University, St. Louis. Inclisiran, she noted, requires injections every 6 months and has yet to show its mettle in cardiovascular outcomes trials.
“Certainly, an oral form would be easier to use,” she said. “This would be particularly helpful in patients averse to injections,” especially, perhaps, in children. “Children with familial hypercholesterolemia could benefit with greater cholesterol lowering and might be better off with a pill than an injection.” That would be good reason to emphasize the enrollment of children in the drug’s upcoming clinical trials, Dr. Goldberg said.
But cost could potentially become restrictive for MK-0616 as well, should it ever be approved. “If it’s priced too high, then are you really going to see the increased use?” she posed. “Certainly, there’s a high bar for therapies that are add-on to statins in terms of cost effectiveness.”
In the first of the two trials, 60 predominantly White male participants aged 50 or younger were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of MK-0616, at different levels ranging from 10 mg to 300 mg, or placebo. They subsequently crossed over to a different group for a second round of dosing. Both times, three participants took the drug for every one who received placebo.
Participants who took the active drug, regardless of dosage, showed greater than 90% reductions in circulating PCSK9 levels compared to baseline. Six participants discontinued the study before its completion.
In the second trial, 40 White adults aged 65 or younger (mean, 58), including 13 women, with LDL-C of 60 mg/dL to 160 mg/dL (mean, 87 mg/dL) on statin therapy for at least 3 months were randomly assigned 3-to-1 to add-on MK-0616, either 10 mg or 20 mg daily, or placebo for 14 days.
LDL-C levels fell an average of about 65% over the 2 weeks among those taking the active drug; they declined less than 5% for those who took placebo.
There were no deaths or serious adverse events in either trial, Dr. Johns reported. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics studies showed that exposure to the drug fell by “about 50%-60%” when dosing was preceded by food intake within the previous 30 minutes. “However, if a meal is consumed 30 minutes after the dose, this food effect is much, much less prominent, almost negligible.”
These preliminary results show the drug is “orally bioavailable and exerts a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. Johns said. “However, there’s definitely more to be done. And we are planning the next phase of clinical development, a phase 2 trial, sometime next year.”
The research was funded by Merck. Dr. Johns disclosed employment with and equity ownership in Merck, as did all the study’s coauthors. Dr. Goldberg disclosed holding research contracts through her institution with Regeneron/Sanofi-Aventis, Amarin, Amgen, Pfizer, IONIS/Akcea, Regeneron, Novartis, Arrowroot Pharmaceuticals, and the FH Foundation; and consulting for Novartis, Akcea, Regeneron, and Esperion.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHA 2021