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')]
Type 2 diabetes linked to increased risk for Parkinson’s
New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.
“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.
The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.
Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.
“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.
The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.
They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.
“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.
“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added. “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”
For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.
The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).
The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51).
Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.
For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.
Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.
On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.
In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.
Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.
Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.
“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.
This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.
Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.
“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.
The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.
Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.
“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.
The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.
They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.
“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.
“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added. “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”
For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.
The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).
The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51).
Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.
For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.
Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.
On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.
In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.
Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.
Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.
“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.
This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.
Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New analyses of both observational and genetic data have provided “convincing evidence” that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease.
“The fact that we see the same effects in both types of analysis separately makes it more likely that these results are real – that type 2 diabetes really is a driver of Parkinson’s disease risk,” Alastair Noyce, PhD, senior author of the new studies, said in an interview.
The two analyses are reported in one paper published online March 8 in the journal Movement Disorders.
Dr. Noyce, clinical senior lecturer in the preventive neurology unit at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, explained that his group is interested in risk factors for Parkinson’s disease, particularly those relevant at the population level and which might be modifiable.
“Several studies have looked at diabetes as a risk factor for Parkinson’s but very few have focused on type 2 diabetes, and, as this is such a growing health issue, we wanted to look at that in more detail,” he said.
The researchers performed two different analyses: a meta-analysis of observational studies investigating an association between type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s; and a separate Mendelian randomization analysis of genetic data on the two conditions.
They found similar results in both studies, with the observational data suggesting type 2 diabetes was associated with a 21% increased risk for Parkinson’s disease and the genetic data suggesting an 8% increased risk. There were also hints that type 2 diabetes might also be associated with faster progression of Parkinson’s symptoms.
“I don’t think type 2 diabetes is a major cause of Parkinson’s, but it probably makes some contribution and may increase the risk of a more aggressive form of the condition,” Dr. Noyce said.
“I would say the increased risk of Parkinson’s disease attributable to type 2 diabetes may be similar to that of head injury or pesticide exposure, but it is important, as type 2 diabetes is very prevalent and is increasing,” he added. “As we see the growth in type 2 diabetes, this could lead to a later increase in Parkinson’s, which is already one of the fastest-growing diseases worldwide.”
For the meta-analysis of observational data, the researchers included nine studies that investigated preceding type 2 diabetes specifically and its effect on the risk for Parkinson’s disease and progression.
The pooled effect estimates showed that type 2 diabetes was associated with an increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.36), and there was some evidence that type 2 diabetes was associated with faster progression of motor symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.55) and cognitive decline (SMD, −0.92).
The observational meta-analysis included seven cohort studies and two case-control studies, and these different types of studies showed different results in regard to the association between diabetes and Parkinson’s. While the cohort studies showed a detrimental effect of diabetes on Parkinson’s risk (OR, 1.29), the case-control studies suggested protective effect (OR, 0.51).
Addressing this, Dr. Noyce noted that the case-control studies may be less reliable as they suffered more from survivor bias. “Diabetes may cause deaths in mid-life before people go on to develop Parkinson’s, and this would cause a protective effect to be seen, but we believe this to be a spurious result. Cohort studies are generally more reliable and are less susceptible to survivor bias,” he said.
For the genetic analysis, the researchers combined results from two large publicly available genome-wide association studies – one for type 2 diabetes and one for Parkinson’s disease to assess whether individuals with a genetic tendency to type 2 diabetes had a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s.
Results showed an increased risk for Parkinson’s in those individuals with genetic variants associated with type 2 diabetes, with an odds ratio of 1.08 (P = .010). There was also some evidence of an effect on motor progression (OR, 1.10; P = .032) but not on cognitive progression.
On the possible mechanism behind this observation, Dr. Noyce noted type 2 diabetes and Parkinson’s have some similarities in biology, including abnormal protein aggregation.
In the study, the authors also suggest that circulating insulin may have a neuroprotective role, whereas systemic and local insulin resistance can influence pathways known to be important in Parkinson’s pathogenesis, including those that relate to mitochondrial dysfunction, neuroinflammation, synaptic plasticity, and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Dr. Noyce further pointed out that several drugs used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been repurposed as possible treatments for Parkinson’s disease and are now being tested for this new indication. “Our results support that approach and raise the idea that some of these drugs may even prevent Parkinson’s in people at risk,” he said.
Most people who have type 2 diabetes won’t get Parkinson’s disease, he added. Other outcomes such as heart disease, kidney disease, and microvascular complications are far more likely, and the main aim of preventing and treating type 2 diabetes is to prevent these far more common outcomes. “But our data suggests that this could also have a possible benefit in reducing future Parkinson’s risk,” he said.
Not on the horizon at present is the possibility of screening patients with type 2 diabetes for signs of early Parkinson’s, Dr. Noyce said.
“There isn’t a test for identifying presymptomatic neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s yet, but perhaps in the future there will be, and type 2 diabetes may be one risk factor to take into account when considering such screening,” he added.
This work was financially supported by grants from The Michael J. Fox Foundation; the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA); the Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF), awarded to McGill University for the Healthy Brains for Healthy Lives (HBHL) initiative; and Parkinson Canada, and the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute on Aging.
Dr. Noyce reports grants from the Barts Charity, Parkinson’s UK, Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s and Michael J. Fox Foundation, and the Virginia Keiley Benefaction; and personal fees/honoraria from Britannia, BIAL, AbbVie, Global Kinetics Corporation, Profile, Biogen, Roche, and UCB outside of the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Colchicine before PCI for acute MI fails to improve major outcomes
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM CRT 2021
‘Major update’ of BP guidance for kidney disease; treat to 120 mm Hg
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new 2021 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guideline for blood pressure management for adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who are not receiving dialysis advises treating to a target systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, provided measurements are “standardized” and that blood pressure is “measured properly.”
This blood pressure target – largely based on evidence from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) – represents “a major update” from the 2012 KDIGO guideline, which advised clinicians to treat to a target blood pressure of less than or equal to 130/80 mm Hg for patients with albuminuria or less than or equal to 140/90 mm Hg for patients without albuminuria.
The new goal is also lower than the less than 130/80 mm Hg target in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.
In a study of the public health implications of the guideline, Kathryn Foti, PhD, and colleagues determined that 70% of U.S. adults with CKD would now be eligible for treatment to lower blood pressure, as opposed to 50% under the previous KDIGO guideline and 56% under the ACC/AHA guideline.
“This is a major update of an influential set of guidelines for chronic kidney disease patients” at a time when blood pressure control is worsening in the United States, Dr. Foti, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, said in a statement from her institution.
The 2021 KDIGO blood pressure guideline and executive summary and the public health implications study are published online in Kidney International.
First, ‘take blood pressure well’
The cochair of the new KDIGO guidelines, Alfred K. Cheung, MD, from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview that the guideline has “two important points.”
First, “take that blood pressure well,” he said. “That has a lot to do with patient preparation rather than any fancy instrument,” he emphasized.
Second, the guideline proposes a systolic blood pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg for most people with CKD not receiving dialysis, except for children and kidney transplant recipients. This target is “contingent on ‘standardized’ blood pressure measurement.”
The document provides a checklist for obtaining a standardized blood pressure measurement, adapted from the 2017 ACC/AHA blood pressure guidelines. It starts with the patient relaxed and sitting on a chair for more than 5 minutes.
In contrast to this measurement, a “routine” or “casual” office blood pressure measurement could be off by plus or minus 10 mm Hg, Dr. Cheung noted.
In a typical scenario, he continued, a patient cannot find a place to park, rushes into the clinic, and has his or her blood pressure checked right away, which would provide a “totally unreliable” reading. Adding a “fudge factor” (correction factor) would not provide an accurate reading.
Clinicians “would not settle for a potassium measurement that is 5.0 mmol/L plus or minus a few decimal points” to guide treatment, he pointed out.
Second, target 120, properly measured
“The very first chapter of the guidelines is devoted to blood pressure measurement, because we recognize if we’re going to do 120 [mm Hg] – the emphasis is on 120 measured properly – so we try to drive that point home,” Tara I. Chang, MD, guideline second author and a coauthor of the public health implications study, pointed out in an interview.
“There are a lot of other things that we base clinical decisions on where we really require some degree of precision, and blood pressure is important enough that to us it’s kind of in the same boat,” said Dr. Chang, from Stanford (Calif.) University.
“In SPRINT, people were randomized to less than less than 120 vs. less than 140 (they weren’t randomized to <130),” she noted.
“The recommendation should be widely adopted in clinical practice,” the guideline authors write, “since accurate measurements will ensure that proper guidance is being applied to the management of BP, as it is to the management of other risk factors.”
Still need individual treatment
Nevertheless, patients still need individualized treatment, the document stresses. “Not every patient with CKD will be appropriate to target to less than 120,” Dr. Chang said. However, “we want people to at least consider less than 120,” she added, to avoid therapeutic inertia.
“If you take the blood pressure in a standardized manner – such as in the ACCORD trial and in the SPRINT trial – even patients over 75 years old, or people over 80 years old, they have very little side effects,” Dr. Cheung noted.
“In the overall cohort,” he continued, “they do not have a significant increase in serious adverse events, do not have adverse events of postural hypotension, syncope, bradycardia, injurious falls – so people are worried about it, but it’s not borne out by the data.
“That said, I have two cautions,” Dr. Cheung noted. “One. If you drop somebody’s blood pressure rapidly over a week, you may be more likely to get in trouble. If you drop the blood pressure gradually over several weeks, several months, you’re much less likely to get into trouble.”
“Two. If the patient is old, you know the patient has carotid stenosis and already has postural dizziness, you may not want to try on that patient – but just because the patient is old is not the reason not to target 120.”
ACE inhibitors and ARBs beneficial in albuminuria, underused
“How do you get to less than 120? The short answer is, use whatever medications you need to – there is no necessarily right cocktail,” Dr. Chang said.
“We’ve known that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] are beneficial in patients with CKD and in particular those with heavier albuminuria,” she continued. “We’ve known this for over 20 years.”
Yet, the study identified underutilization – “a persistent gap, just like blood pressure control and awareness,” she noted. “We’re just not making much headway.
“We are not recommending ACE inhibitors or ARBs for all the patients,” Dr. Cheung clarified. “If you are diabetic and have heavy proteinuria, that’s when the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs are most indicated.”
Public health implications
SPRINT showed that treating to a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg vs. less than 140 mm Hg reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease by 25% and all-cause mortality by 27% for participants with and those without CKD, Dr. Foti and colleagues stress.
They aimed to estimate how the new guideline would affect (1) the number of U.S. patients with CKD who would be eligible for blood pressure lowering treatment, and (2) the proportion of those with albuminuria who would be eligible for an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
The researchers analyzed data from 1,699 adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate, 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2 or a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of ≥30 mg/g) who participated in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Both the 2021 and 2012 KDIGO guidelines recommend that patients with albuminuria and blood pressure higher than the target value who are not kidney transplant recipients should be treated with an ACE inhibitor or an ARB.
On the basis of the new target, 78% of patients with CKD and albuminuria were eligible for ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment by the 2021 KDIGO guideline, compared with 71% by the 2012 KDIGO guideline. However, only 39% were taking one of these drugs.
These findings show that “with the new guideline and with the lower blood pressure target, you potentially have an even larger pool of people who have blood pressure that’s not under control, and a potential larger group of people who may benefit from ACE inhibitors and ARBs,” Dr. Chang said.
“Our paper is not the only one to show that we haven’t made a whole lot of progress,” she said, “and now that the bar has been lowered, there [have] to be some renewed efforts on controlling blood pressure, because we know that blood pressure control is such an important risk factor for cardiovascular outcomes.”
Dr. Foti is supported by an NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant. Dr. Cheung has received consultancy fees from Amgen, Bard, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calliditas, Tricida, and UpToDate, and grant/research support from the National Institutes of Health for SPRINT (monies paid to institution). Dr. Chang has received consultancy fees from Bayer, Gilead, Janssen Research and Development, Novo Nordisk, Tricida, and Vascular Dynamics; grant/research support from AstraZeneca and Satellite Healthcare (monies paid to institution), the NIH, and the American Heart Association; is on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Fresenius Medical Care Renal Therapies Group; and has received workshop honoraria from Fresenius. Disclosures of relevant financial relationships of the other authors are listed in the original articles.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Target-lesion failure reduced 2 years after MI with biodegradable stent
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM CRT 2021
First pill for COVID-19 could be ready by year’s end
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New pills to treat patients with COVID-19 are currently in midstage clinical trials and, if successful, could be ready by the end of the year.
Only one treatment – remdesivir (Veklury) – has been fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients in the hospital and it must be administered intravenously.
Hopes for a day when patients with COVID-19 can take a pill to rid their bodies of the virus got a boost when early trial results were presented at a medical conference.
Interim phase 2 results for the oral experimental COVID-19 drug molnupiravir, designed to do for patients with COVID-19 what oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do for patients with the flu, were presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2021 Annual Meeting, as reported by this news organization.
In the small study, the pill significantly reduced infectious virus in patients who were symptomatic and had tested positive for COVID-19 during the previous 4 days but were not hospitalized.
After 5 days of treatment, no participants who received molnupiravir had detectable virus, whereas 24% who received placebo did.
Two other oral agents are being developed by RedHill Biopharma: one for severe COVID-19 infection for hospitalized patients and one for patients at home with mild infection.
The first, opaganib (Yeliva), proceeded to a phase 2/3 global trial for hospitalized patients after the company announced top-line safety and efficacy data in December. In phase 2, the drug was shown to be safe in patients requiring oxygen and effectively reduced the need for oxygen by the end of the treatment period.
A key feature is that it is both an antiviral and an anti-inflammatory, Gilead Raday, RedHill’s chief operating officer, said in an interview. Data are expected midyear on its performance in 464 patients. The drug is being tested on top of remdesivir or in addition to dexamethasone.
The second, upamostat (RHB-107), is currently undergoing a phase 2/3 trial in the United States and is being investigated for use in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients.
“I would expect data to be available in the second half of this year,” Mr. Raday said.
Upamostat is a novel serine protease inhibitor expected to be effective against emerging variants because it targets human cell factors involved in viral entry, according to the company.
Other drugs are being investigated in trials that are in earlier stages.
Urgent need for oral agents
Infectious disease specialists are watching the move toward a COVID-19 pill enthusiastically.
“We badly need an oral treatment option for COVID,” said Sarah Doernberg, MD, an infectious disease specialist from the University of California, San Francisco.
“It’s a real gap in our armamentarium for COVID in outpatient treatment, which is where most who contract COVID-19 will seek care,” she said in an interview.
Although some studies have shown the benefit of monoclonal antibodies for prevention and early treatment, there are major logistical issues because all the current options require IV administration, she explained.
“If we had a pill to treat early COVID, especially in high-risk patients, it would fill a gap,” she said, noting that a pill could help people get better faster and prevent hospital stays.
Studies of molnupiravir suggest that it decreases viral shedding in the first few days after COVID infection, Dr. Doernberg reported.
There is excitement around the drug, but it will be important to see whether the results translate into fewer people requiring hospital admission and whether people feel better faster.
“I want to see the clinical data,” Dr. Doernberg said.
She will also be watching for the upamostat and opaganib results in the coming weeks.
“If these drugs are successful, I think it’s possible we could use them – maybe under an emergency use authorization – this year,” she said.
Once antiviral pills are a viable option for COVID-19 treatment, questions will arise about their use, she said.
One question is whether patients who are getting remdesivir in the hospital and are ready to leave after 5 days should continue treatment with antiviral pills at home.
Another is whether the pills – if they are shown to be effective – will be helpful for COVID post exposure. That use would be important for people who do not have COVID-19 but who are in close contact with someone who does, such as a member of their household.
“We have that model,” Dr. Doernberg said. “We know that oseltamivir can be used for postexposure prophylaxis and can help to prevent development of clinical disease.”
But she cautioned that a challenge with COVID is that people are contagious very early. A pill would need to come with the ability to test for COVID-19 early and get patients linked to care immediately.
“Those are not small challenges,” she said.
Vaccines alone won’t end the COVID threat
Treatments are part of the “belt-and-suspenders” approach, along with vaccines to combat COVID-19, Dr. Doernberg said.
“We’re not going to eradicate COVID,” she said. “We’re still going to need treatments for people who either don’t respond to the vaccine or haven’t gotten the vaccine or developed disease despite the vaccine.”
Oral formulations are desperately needed, agreed Kenneth Johnson, PhD, professor of molecular biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
Right now, remdesivir treatments involve patients being hooked up to an IV for 30-120 minutes each day for 5 days. And the cost of a 5-day course of remdesivir ranges from $2340 to $3120 in the United States.
“We’re hoping we can come up with something that is a little bit easier to administer, and without as many concerns for toxic side effects,” he said.
Dr. Johnson’s team at UT-Austin recently made a key discovery about the way remdesivir stops the replication of viral RNA.
The understanding of where the virus starts to replicate in the infection chain of events and how and where it reacts with remdesivir might lead to the development of better, more concentrated pill forms of antivirals in the future, with fewer toxicities, he said.
The team used a lab dish to recreate the step-by-step process that occurs when a patient who is infected with SARS-CoV-2 receives remdesivir.
The discovery was published online in Molecular Cell in January and will be printed in the April issue of the journal.
The discovery won’t lead to an effective COVID-19 pill for our current crisis, but will be important for the next generation of drugs needed to deal with future coronaviruses, Dr. Johnson explained.
And there will be other coronaviruses, he said, noting that this one is the third in 20 years to jump from animals to humans. “It’s just a matter of time,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Evidence grows for food as RA treatment
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.
But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.
Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
RA improvement on an ITIS diet
Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.
However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.
The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.
As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.
At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.
Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.
The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.
Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.
Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.
“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.
If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.
In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.
“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.
American RA patients embrace turmeric
Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.
Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.
Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
What about osteoarthritis?
Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.
Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.
Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.
Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.
But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.
Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
RA improvement on an ITIS diet
Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.
However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.
The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.
As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.
At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.
Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.
The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.
Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.
Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.
“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.
If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.
In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.
“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.
American RA patients embrace turmeric
Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.
Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.
Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
What about osteoarthritis?
Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.
Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.
Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.
Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are often eager to try dietary interventions in an effort to improve their symptoms. For guidance, they turn to their rheumatologists, who typically can offer little in terms of concrete evidence-based recommendations. That’s because their training didn’t emphasize the role of nutrients in rheumatic diseases, the scientific evidence has historically been sketchy, and the topic of diet and disease is rife with fad diets, inflated Internet claims, and hucksterism.
But that’s changing. Indeed, recent annual meetings of the American College of Rheumatology have featured randomized, controlled trials that bring welcome rigor to the field and provide findings of practical interest to clinicians and their patients, Orrin M. Troum, MD, said at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
He highlighted some of this work, including positive randomized trials of the dietary supplements Biqi – a traditional Chinese herbal medicine – as well as turmeric, along with reported progress in efforts to design a palatable anti-inflammatory diet that favorably alters the gut microbiome and systemic metabolome while improving clinical outcomes in patients with RA.
Dr. Troum, a rheumatologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and in private practice in Santa Monica, described a typical patient encounter in his clinic that appeared to resonate with his audience from throughout the country: “You can tell people to take another medicine and they’ll start shaking their head no before you’re finished. But when you say there are natural supplements that can help you, they’re saying ‘Yes!’ ”
RA improvement on an ITIS diet
Many physicians recommend a Mediterranean-style diet, first popularized in the landmark Seven Countries Study launched by the late Dr. Ancel Keys. This familiar plant-based regimen emphasizes liberal consumption of extra-virgin olive oil, legumes, fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, nuts, and moderate alcohol intake, with very limited intake of red and processed meats, refined grains, and sugar. There is strong evidence that the Mediterranean diet is cardioprotective, which is relevant to patients with RA since they are known to be at elevated cardiovascular risk.
However, investigators at the University of California, San Diego, became convinced that the Mediterranean diet is lacking in key anti-inflammatory ingredients from other parts of the world. These include ginger, green tea, black pepper, turmeric, miso, flax seeds, and tahini, all of which are backed by evidence – from animal models and/or interventional diet studies in patients – that suggests beneficial effects in pain and joint swelling in RA. The researchers also suspected that certain vegetables embraced in the Mediterranean diet – notably eggplant, tomatoes, and potatoes – might be problematic for RA patients because they contain solanine, thought to increase intestinal permeability, which might have arthritogenic effects on the gut microbiome.
The investigators set out to develop an anti-inflammatory diet they call the ITIS diet, essentially tweaking the Mediterranean-style diet by incorporating these additions and subtractions. Importantly, they designed the ITIS diet in conjunction with a multiracial local group of RA patients strongly enthusiastic about the potential for dietary interventions aimed at improving their symptoms. The patients provided feedback that enabled the investigators to fine-tune the anti-inflammatory diet so as to boost palatability and acceptance.
As an illustrative example of the ITIS diet, a typical day might start off with a homemade smoothie of parsley, pineapple, strawberries, and water, followed by a breakfast consisting of one or two corn tortillas spread with avocado, linseed oil, and sesame seeds, accompanied by green tea. Following a mid-morning snack of plain Greek-style yogurt, lunch might be a choice of a large salad, legumes with vegetables, or whole grains with vegetables. For the afternoon snack: four walnuts plus mango, banana, pear, papaya, apple, or pineapple. And for dinner, the options are vegetable soup and a protein; salad plus a protein; or miso soup, cooked vegetables, and a protein.
At the 2020 ACR annual meeting, Roxana Coras, MD, presented the positive findings of an open-label, pilot study of the ITIS diet in which 17 patients with active RA involving at least three tender and three swollen joints adopted the diet for 2 weeks . The ITIS diet turned out to be not too much of a stretch for Southern California RA patients interested in dietary complementary and alternative medicine. Many had already adopted some elements of the anti-inflammatory diet. Dietary adherence in the study was good, as monitored in food logs and by mass spectrometry metabolic profiling of fecal and plasma samples.
Eleven patients were categorized as responders to the anti-inflammatory diet as defined by at least a 50% improvement in pain scores from baseline to 2 weeks; six patients were nonresponders. In the overall study population, mean pain scores on a 0-10 visual analog scale improved from 3.9 to 2.45. Scores on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) also improved significantly on the ITIS diet, from 29 to 12.7, reported Dr. Coras, a rheumatologist at the University of California, San Diego.
The mechanisms for the clinical improvement on the diet are under study. Significant differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome were seen between the responders and nonresponders. For example, Mollicutes were increased and Coriobacteriales decreased in clinical responders versus nonresponders. A significant increase in circulating levels of anti-inflammatory oxylipins was also seen in responders. Longer-term controlled studies of the ITIS diet are planned.
Biqi is big in China, gaining ground in the U.S.
Ayurvedic medicine in India and Chinese traditional herbal medicine have richly documented 4,500-year histories.
“It’s so common in my neck of the woods, where there are large Asian communities, for Chinese or Korean or Japanese or Indian medicines to be combined with our medicines. And if you don’t ask about them, you’re never going to find out what these patients are taking,” Dr. Troum said.
If they’re taking Biqi capsules, readily available on the Internet, be advised that there is randomized trial evidence to show that they’re using an efficacious and safe herbal medicine for RA. In China, the combination of Biqi capsules and a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug such as methotrexate is now widely used for treatment of RA. And at the 2019 ACR annual meeting, Runyue Huang, MD, of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, presented the results of a 24-week, randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial in which 70 RA patients were assigned to methotrexate plus a 1.2-g Biqi capsule twice daily or to methotrexate plus leflunomide (Arava) at 20 mg/day. The primary outcome – achievement of a 20% improvement in the ACR criteria, or ACR20 response, at week 24 – was achieved in 77% of the Biqi group, not significantly different from the 83% rate in the comparator group. However, the Biqi plus methotrexate group had significantly fewer adverse events and the combination was better tolerated than was leflunomide plus methotrexate.
In addition, a systematic review of earlier clinical trials concluded that Biqi in combination with methotrexate was more effective and had fewer adverse events than methotrexate alone.
“Biqi capsule with methotrexate appears to be a promising combination for RA if you can rest assured that what’s found in the Biqi capsule is exactly what they say. And that’s the main issue: You don’t really know what you’re getting unless it’s in a trial,” Dr. Troum said.
American RA patients embrace turmeric
Turmeric has played a prominent role in Ayurvedic medicine for millenia. The most medicinally important component of turmeric root is curcumin, which has potent anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Americans with RA have gotten on the bandwagon, as demonstrated in a survey of 291 patients with RA or psoriatic arthritis presented at ACR 2020 by investigators from the University of Central Florida, Orlando. Among the respondents, 37% reported having taken curcumin, with no predilection based upon age, gender, or diagnosis. Fifty-nine percent took their curcumin in the form of capsules, with the rest took it as an oil or powder. Fifty-four percent got their curcumin at a local store.
Thirty-six percent of curcumin users reported improvement in pain after going on the herbal supplement. Twenty-five percent reported reduced swelling, 23% had less stiffness, and 16% reported improvement in fatigue. Patients taking 200-1,000 mg/day reported significantly greater improvement in symptoms than that of those taking less than 200 mg/day. Onset of benefits was slow: Patients on curcumin for a year or longer reported greater symptomatic improvement than did those on the supplement for less time.
Asked what he recommends to his RA patients who express interest in supplements aimed at achieving symptomatic improvement, Dr. Troum replied that he’s comfortable suggesting curcumin capsules at 500 mg twice daily, which should be labeled as containing black pepper extract to aid in absorption. He also recommends fish oil both for its cardioprotective benefits and because of randomized trial evidence that it enhances the chances of achieving ACR remission in patients on conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
What about osteoarthritis?
Investigators with the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Osteoarthritis Initiative found in an analysis of the dietary patterns of 2,757 patients with mild to moderate knee OA who were followed annually for 6 years that participants could be grouped into two broad categories: Those who consumed what was termed the prudent diet, with high intake of fruits and vegetables, legumes, fish, and whole grains; and fans of the Western diet, characterized by lots of red meat, refined grains, and liberal consumption of French fries. Knee symptoms increased over time in dose-response fashion with greater adherence to the Western diet and decreased with higher prudent diet scores.
Also at ACR 2019, Australian investigators presented the results of the double-blind CurKOA trial, in which 70 participants with knee OA and moderate baseline effusion/synovitis by ultrasound were randomized to take a capsule containing 500 mg of turmeric root extract or identical placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The group on turmeric plant extract experienced 9.11-mm greater reduction in knee pain on a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale than did controls, which translates to a moderate standard effect size deemed by investigators to be “greater than other conventional pharmacologic therapies.” Overall, 63% of the turmeric group achieved a treatment response by OARSI-OMERACT criteria, a significantly better outcome than the 38% rate in controls. However, there was no significant between-group difference in knee structural measures as assessed by MRI in this relatively brief trial.
Anne M. Stevens, MD, PhD, senior director of immunology translational medicine at Janssen Pharmaceuticals and a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, rose from the audience to share that she recommends that her patients on high-dose curcumin not take NSAIDs because the two share a similar mechanism of action involving COX-2 inhibition, and the combination might therefore increase bleeding risk. But Dr. Troum said he hasn’t seen any increase in bleeding in his patients on both agents.
Dr. Troum has financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, but reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
FROM RWCS 2021
Is pediatric subspecialty training financially worth it?
Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.
Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.
“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off
However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”
Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.
For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.
They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.
Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
The financial gap has worsened
To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.
The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.
The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.
“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.
Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.
The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’
Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.
“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”
But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.
Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.
“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”
A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.
The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.
The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.
Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.
“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off
However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”
Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.
For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.
They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.
Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
The financial gap has worsened
To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.
The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.
The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.
“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.
Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.
The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’
Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.
“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”
But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.
Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.
“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”
A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.
The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.
The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pursuing fellowship training is often financially costly in terms of lifetime earnings, compared with starting a career as a general pediatrician immediately after residency, a report suggests.
Researchers found that most pediatric subspecialists – including those practicing neurology, pulmonology, and adolescent medicine – do not see a financial return from additional training because of the delays in receiving increased compensation and the repayment of educational debt.
“Most pediatric subspecialists don’t experience a relative increase in compensation after training compared to a general pediatrician, so there isn’t a financial benefit to additional training,” lead author Eva Catenaccio, MD, from the division of pediatric neurology, department of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.
The findings, published online March 8 in Pediatrics, contribute to the ongoing debate about the length of pediatric fellowship training programs. The data also provide evidence for the potential effect of a pediatric subspecialty loan repayment program.
Pediatric subspecialty training rarely pays off
However, not all practitioners in pediatric subspecialties would find themselves in the red relative to their generalist peers. Three subspecialties had a positive financial return: cardiology, critical care, and neonatology. Dr. Catenaccio explained that this may be because these subspecialties tend to be “inpatient procedure oriented, which are often more [lucrative] than outpatient cognitive–oriented subspecialties, such as pediatric infectious diseases, endocrinology, or adolescent medicine.”
Enrolling in a pediatric fellowship program resulted in lifetime financial returns that ranged from an increase of $852,129 for cardiology, relative to general pediatrics, to a loss of $1,594,366 for adolescent medicine, researchers found.
For the study, researchers calculated the financial returns of 15 pediatric subspecialties – emergency medicine, neurology, cardiology, critical care, neonatology, hematology and oncology, pulmonology, hospitalist medicine, allergy and immunology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, nephrology, adolescent medicine, infectious diseases, and endocrinology – in comparison with returns of private practice general pediatrics on the basis of 2018-2019 data on fellowship stipends, compensation, and educational debt.
They obtained most of the data from the Association of American Medical Colleges Survey of Resident/Fellow Stipends and Benefits, AAMC’s annual Medical School Faculty Salary Report, and the AAMC Medical School Graduation Questionnaire.
Richard Mink, MD, department of pediatrics, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., noted that it would have been helpful to have also compared the lifetime earnings of practitioners in pediatric subspecialties to academic general pediatricians and not just those in private practice.
The financial gap has worsened
To better understand which aspects of fellowship training have the greatest effect on lifetime compensation, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues evaluated the potential effects of shortening fellowship length, eliminating school debt, and implementing a federal loan repayment plan. These changes enhanced the returns of cardiology, critical care, and neonatology – subspecialties that had already seen financial returns before these changes – and resulted in a positive financial return for emergency medicine.
The changes also narrowed the financial gap between subspecialties and general pediatrics. However, the remaining subspecialties still earned less than private practice pediatrics.
The new study is an update to a 2011 report, which reflected 2007-2008 data for 11 subspecialties. This time around, the researchers included the subspecialty of hospitalist medicine, which was approved as a board-certified subspecialty by the American Board of Pediatrics in 2014, as well as neurology, allergy and immunology, and adolescent medicine.
“I was most surprised that the additional pediatric subspecialties we included since the 2011 report followed the same general trend, with pediatric subspecialty training having a lower lifetime earning potential than general pediatrics,” Dr. Catenaccio said.
Comparing results from the two study periods showed that the financial gap between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics worsened over time. For example, the financial return for pediatric endocrinology decreased an additional $500,000 between 2007 and 2018.
The researchers believe a combination of increased educational debt burden, slow growth in compensation, and changing interest rates over time have caused the financial differences between general pediatrics and subspecialty pediatrics to become more pronounced.
‘Pediatric subspecialty training is worth it!’
Despite the financial gaps, Dr. Catenaccio and colleagues say pediatric subspecialty training is still worthwhile but that policymakers should address these financial differences to help guide workforce distribution in a way that meets the needs of patients.
“I think pediatric subspecialty training is worth it,” said Dr. Catenaccio, who’s pursuing pediatric subspecialty training. “There are so many factors that go into choosing a specialty or subspecialty in medicine, including the desire to care for a particular patient population, interest in certain diseases or organ systems, lifestyle considerations, and research opportunities.”
But it’s also important for trainees to be aware of economic considerations in their decision-making.
Dr. Mink, who wrote an accompanying commentary, agrees that young clinicians should not make career decisions on the basis of metrics such as lifetime earning measures.
“I think people who go into pediatrics have decided that money is not the driving force,” said Dr. Mink. He noted that pediatricians are usually not paid well, compared with other specialists. “To me the important thing is you have to like what you’re doing.”
A 2020 study found that trainees who chose a career in pediatric pulmonology, a subspecialty, said that financial considerations were not the driving factor in their decision-making. Nevertheless, Dr. Mink also believes young clinicians should take into account their educational debt.
The further widening of the financial gap between general pediatrics and pediatric subspecialties could lead to shortages in the pediatric subspecialty workforce.
The authors and Dr. Mink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vasodilatory medications found protective against rosacea
.
“Our initial hypothesis was that perhaps antihypertensive agents might be associated with worsening rosacea,” one of the study authors, Jennifer G. Powers, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview. “What we found was exactly the opposite – that in fact their presence in a medical chart correlated with lower rates of rosacea diagnoses, as defined by ICD 9/10 codes.”
According to the researchers, who published their findings in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, cases of acute vasodilator-induced rosacea have been reported, but no long-term association has been established. “In fact, many widely used antihypertensive medications modulate peripheral vascular tone,” they wrote. “Therefore, chronic use in patients with hypertension may reduce damage to peripheral vessels, and thus decrease risk of rosacea.”
To determine the correlates between vasodilator use and risk of rosacea, Dr. Powers and colleagues identified 680 hypertensive patients being treated with vasodilators or a thiazide diuretic in whom rosacea developed within 5 years of initiating therapy between June 1, 2006, and April 31, 2019. Vasodilator therapies included angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Patients on thiazide diuretics served as the control group. The researchers stratified the patients by age, gender, race, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease and calculated relative risk estimates comparing vasodilators with thiazides between strata.
Of the 680 patients, all but 40 were White; 127 were on thiazides, and the remaining 553 were on vasodilators. Overall, the researchers observed that use of vasodilators had a protective effect on the development of rosacea within 5 years, compared with thiazides (relative risk [RR], 0.56; P less than .0001). Specifically, the relative risk was 0.50 for ACE-inhibitors (P less than .0001); 0.69 for ARBs (P = .041); 0.55 for beta-blockers (P less than .0001); and 0.39 for CCBs (P less than .0001).
Dr. Powers and colleagues also observed significant inverse correlations in ACE-inhibitors, beta-blockers, and CCBs among White women aged 50 and older, but no significance was observed in non-White subgroups. The cohorts of patients with chronic kidney disease and coronary artery disease were too small for analysis.
“We were very surprised to find that many of the agents we think of as vasodilators might actually be beneficial for rosacea,” Dr. Powers said. “We would like to see these results reproduced in larger population studies. There are also potential questions about the mechanism at play. However, should these findings hold true, [it’s] all the more reason for our rosacea patients with hypertension to be managed well. They need not fear that those medications are worsening disease. Also, there might be new therapeutic options based on this data.”
The study received funding support from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
One of Dr. Powers’ coauthors is her husband, Edward M. Powers, MD, a cardiology fellow at the University of Iowa. “We sometimes bounce ideas off one another and will talk about how systemic effects on the vasculature may impact skin disease,” she said, noting that they also published a report on statins and atopic dermatitis.
.
“Our initial hypothesis was that perhaps antihypertensive agents might be associated with worsening rosacea,” one of the study authors, Jennifer G. Powers, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview. “What we found was exactly the opposite – that in fact their presence in a medical chart correlated with lower rates of rosacea diagnoses, as defined by ICD 9/10 codes.”
According to the researchers, who published their findings in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, cases of acute vasodilator-induced rosacea have been reported, but no long-term association has been established. “In fact, many widely used antihypertensive medications modulate peripheral vascular tone,” they wrote. “Therefore, chronic use in patients with hypertension may reduce damage to peripheral vessels, and thus decrease risk of rosacea.”
To determine the correlates between vasodilator use and risk of rosacea, Dr. Powers and colleagues identified 680 hypertensive patients being treated with vasodilators or a thiazide diuretic in whom rosacea developed within 5 years of initiating therapy between June 1, 2006, and April 31, 2019. Vasodilator therapies included angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Patients on thiazide diuretics served as the control group. The researchers stratified the patients by age, gender, race, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease and calculated relative risk estimates comparing vasodilators with thiazides between strata.
Of the 680 patients, all but 40 were White; 127 were on thiazides, and the remaining 553 were on vasodilators. Overall, the researchers observed that use of vasodilators had a protective effect on the development of rosacea within 5 years, compared with thiazides (relative risk [RR], 0.56; P less than .0001). Specifically, the relative risk was 0.50 for ACE-inhibitors (P less than .0001); 0.69 for ARBs (P = .041); 0.55 for beta-blockers (P less than .0001); and 0.39 for CCBs (P less than .0001).
Dr. Powers and colleagues also observed significant inverse correlations in ACE-inhibitors, beta-blockers, and CCBs among White women aged 50 and older, but no significance was observed in non-White subgroups. The cohorts of patients with chronic kidney disease and coronary artery disease were too small for analysis.
“We were very surprised to find that many of the agents we think of as vasodilators might actually be beneficial for rosacea,” Dr. Powers said. “We would like to see these results reproduced in larger population studies. There are also potential questions about the mechanism at play. However, should these findings hold true, [it’s] all the more reason for our rosacea patients with hypertension to be managed well. They need not fear that those medications are worsening disease. Also, there might be new therapeutic options based on this data.”
The study received funding support from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
One of Dr. Powers’ coauthors is her husband, Edward M. Powers, MD, a cardiology fellow at the University of Iowa. “We sometimes bounce ideas off one another and will talk about how systemic effects on the vasculature may impact skin disease,” she said, noting that they also published a report on statins and atopic dermatitis.
.
“Our initial hypothesis was that perhaps antihypertensive agents might be associated with worsening rosacea,” one of the study authors, Jennifer G. Powers, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Iowa, Iowa City, said in an interview. “What we found was exactly the opposite – that in fact their presence in a medical chart correlated with lower rates of rosacea diagnoses, as defined by ICD 9/10 codes.”
According to the researchers, who published their findings in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, cases of acute vasodilator-induced rosacea have been reported, but no long-term association has been established. “In fact, many widely used antihypertensive medications modulate peripheral vascular tone,” they wrote. “Therefore, chronic use in patients with hypertension may reduce damage to peripheral vessels, and thus decrease risk of rosacea.”
To determine the correlates between vasodilator use and risk of rosacea, Dr. Powers and colleagues identified 680 hypertensive patients being treated with vasodilators or a thiazide diuretic in whom rosacea developed within 5 years of initiating therapy between June 1, 2006, and April 31, 2019. Vasodilator therapies included angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-blockers, and calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Patients on thiazide diuretics served as the control group. The researchers stratified the patients by age, gender, race, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease and calculated relative risk estimates comparing vasodilators with thiazides between strata.
Of the 680 patients, all but 40 were White; 127 were on thiazides, and the remaining 553 were on vasodilators. Overall, the researchers observed that use of vasodilators had a protective effect on the development of rosacea within 5 years, compared with thiazides (relative risk [RR], 0.56; P less than .0001). Specifically, the relative risk was 0.50 for ACE-inhibitors (P less than .0001); 0.69 for ARBs (P = .041); 0.55 for beta-blockers (P less than .0001); and 0.39 for CCBs (P less than .0001).
Dr. Powers and colleagues also observed significant inverse correlations in ACE-inhibitors, beta-blockers, and CCBs among White women aged 50 and older, but no significance was observed in non-White subgroups. The cohorts of patients with chronic kidney disease and coronary artery disease were too small for analysis.
“We were very surprised to find that many of the agents we think of as vasodilators might actually be beneficial for rosacea,” Dr. Powers said. “We would like to see these results reproduced in larger population studies. There are also potential questions about the mechanism at play. However, should these findings hold true, [it’s] all the more reason for our rosacea patients with hypertension to be managed well. They need not fear that those medications are worsening disease. Also, there might be new therapeutic options based on this data.”
The study received funding support from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.
One of Dr. Powers’ coauthors is her husband, Edward M. Powers, MD, a cardiology fellow at the University of Iowa. “We sometimes bounce ideas off one another and will talk about how systemic effects on the vasculature may impact skin disease,” she said, noting that they also published a report on statins and atopic dermatitis.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Eating fish tied to fewer CVD events in high-risk people
People with cardiovascular disease who regularly ate fish had significantly fewer major CVD events and there were fewer total deaths, compared with similar individuals who didn’t eat fish, but there was no beneficial link from eating fish among the general population in prospective data collected from more than 191,000 people from 58 countries.
Despite the neutral finding among people without CVD, the finding that eating fish was associated with significant benefit for those with CVD or who were at high risk for CVD confirms the public health importance of regular fish or fish oil consumption, said one expert.
A little over a quarter of those included in the new study had a history of CVD or were at high risk for CVD. In this subgroup of more than 51,000 people, those who consumed on average at least two servings of fish weekly (at least 175 g, or about 6.2 ounces per week) had a significant 16% lower rate of major CVD events during a median follow-up of about 7.5 years.
The rate of all-cause death was a significant 18% lower among people who ate two or more fish portions weekly, compared with those who didn’t, Deepa Mohan, PhD, and associates wrote in their report in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The researchers saw no additional benefit when people regularly ate greater amounts of fish.
“There is a significant protective benefit of fish consumption in people with cardiovascular disease,” said Andrew Mente, PhD, a senior investigator on the study and an epidemiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont..
“This study has important implications for guidelines on fish intake globally. It indicates that increasing fish consumption and particularly oily fish in vascular patients may produce a modest cardiovascular benefit,” he said in a statement released by McMaster.
‘A large body of evidence’ for CVD benefit
The neutral finding of no significant benefit (as well as no harm) regarding either CVD events or total mortality among people without CVD “does not alter the large body of prior observational evidence supporting the cardiac benefits of fish intake in general populations,” noted Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, in a commentary that accompanies the report by Dr. Mohan and colleagues.
Although the new analysis failed to show a significant association between regular fish consumption and fewer CVD events for people without established CVD or CVD risk, “based on the cumulative evidence from prospective observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and mechanistic and experimental studies, modest fish consumption appears to have some cardiac benefits,” he added.
“Adults should aim to consume about two servings of fish per week, and larger benefits may accrue from nonfried oily (dark meat) fish,” wrote Dr. Mozaffarian, a professor of medicine and nutrition at Tufts University, Boston.
Oily, dark fishes include salmon, tuna steak, mackerel, herring, and sardines. Species such as these contain the highest levels of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosapentaenoic acid; these nutrients likely underlie the CVD benefits from fish, Dr. Mozaffarian said in an interview with JAMA Internal Medicine that accompanied his commentary. (Dr. Mente also participated.)
“Fish oil lowers heart rate, blood pressure, and triglycerides (at high dosages), increases adiponectin, improves endothelial function, and in some studies improves oxygen consumption in myocardium. If there is benefit from fish it’s from the omega 3s, and all in all the evidence supports this,” but because the evidence is primarily observational, it can only show linkage and cannot prove causation, he explained.
Given the potential benefit and limited risk, “I think everyone should aim to eat two servings of fish each week, preferentially oily fish. That’s very solid,” said Dr. Mozaffarian, who is also a cardiologist and dean of the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science.
The investigators did not have adequate data to compare the associations between outcomes and a diet with oily fish versus less oily fish.
OTC fish oil capsules are ‘very reasonable’
For people who either can’t consume two fish meals a week or want to ensure their omega 3 intake is adequate, “it’s very reasonable for the average person to take one OTC [over-the-counter] fish oil capsule a day,” Dr. Mozaffarian added.
He acknowledged that several studies of fish oil supplements failed to show benefit, but several others have. “It’s a confusing field, but the evidence supports benefit from omega 3s,” he concluded.
He discounted the new finding that only people with established CVD or who are at high-risk benefit. “I’m not sure we should make too much of this, because many prior studies showed a lower CVD risk in fish-eating people without prevalent CVD,” he said. The new study “provides important information given its worldwide breadth.”
The new report used data regarding 191,558 people enrolled prospectively in any of four studies. The average age of the participants was 54 years, and 52% were women.
During follow-up, death from any cause occurred in 6% of those without CVD or CVD risk and in 13% of those with these factors. Major CVD events occurred in 5% and 17% of these two subgroups, respectively. To calculate the relative risks between those who ate fish and those who did not, the investigators used standard multivariate adjustment for potential confounders and adjusted for several dietary variables, Dr. Mente said.
Dr. Mohan and Dr. Mente disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mozaffarian has received personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Amarin, America’s Test Kitchen, Barilla, Danone, GEOD, and Motif Food Works, and he has been an adviser to numerous companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with cardiovascular disease who regularly ate fish had significantly fewer major CVD events and there were fewer total deaths, compared with similar individuals who didn’t eat fish, but there was no beneficial link from eating fish among the general population in prospective data collected from more than 191,000 people from 58 countries.
Despite the neutral finding among people without CVD, the finding that eating fish was associated with significant benefit for those with CVD or who were at high risk for CVD confirms the public health importance of regular fish or fish oil consumption, said one expert.
A little over a quarter of those included in the new study had a history of CVD or were at high risk for CVD. In this subgroup of more than 51,000 people, those who consumed on average at least two servings of fish weekly (at least 175 g, or about 6.2 ounces per week) had a significant 16% lower rate of major CVD events during a median follow-up of about 7.5 years.
The rate of all-cause death was a significant 18% lower among people who ate two or more fish portions weekly, compared with those who didn’t, Deepa Mohan, PhD, and associates wrote in their report in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The researchers saw no additional benefit when people regularly ate greater amounts of fish.
“There is a significant protective benefit of fish consumption in people with cardiovascular disease,” said Andrew Mente, PhD, a senior investigator on the study and an epidemiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont..
“This study has important implications for guidelines on fish intake globally. It indicates that increasing fish consumption and particularly oily fish in vascular patients may produce a modest cardiovascular benefit,” he said in a statement released by McMaster.
‘A large body of evidence’ for CVD benefit
The neutral finding of no significant benefit (as well as no harm) regarding either CVD events or total mortality among people without CVD “does not alter the large body of prior observational evidence supporting the cardiac benefits of fish intake in general populations,” noted Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, in a commentary that accompanies the report by Dr. Mohan and colleagues.
Although the new analysis failed to show a significant association between regular fish consumption and fewer CVD events for people without established CVD or CVD risk, “based on the cumulative evidence from prospective observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and mechanistic and experimental studies, modest fish consumption appears to have some cardiac benefits,” he added.
“Adults should aim to consume about two servings of fish per week, and larger benefits may accrue from nonfried oily (dark meat) fish,” wrote Dr. Mozaffarian, a professor of medicine and nutrition at Tufts University, Boston.
Oily, dark fishes include salmon, tuna steak, mackerel, herring, and sardines. Species such as these contain the highest levels of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosapentaenoic acid; these nutrients likely underlie the CVD benefits from fish, Dr. Mozaffarian said in an interview with JAMA Internal Medicine that accompanied his commentary. (Dr. Mente also participated.)
“Fish oil lowers heart rate, blood pressure, and triglycerides (at high dosages), increases adiponectin, improves endothelial function, and in some studies improves oxygen consumption in myocardium. If there is benefit from fish it’s from the omega 3s, and all in all the evidence supports this,” but because the evidence is primarily observational, it can only show linkage and cannot prove causation, he explained.
Given the potential benefit and limited risk, “I think everyone should aim to eat two servings of fish each week, preferentially oily fish. That’s very solid,” said Dr. Mozaffarian, who is also a cardiologist and dean of the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science.
The investigators did not have adequate data to compare the associations between outcomes and a diet with oily fish versus less oily fish.
OTC fish oil capsules are ‘very reasonable’
For people who either can’t consume two fish meals a week or want to ensure their omega 3 intake is adequate, “it’s very reasonable for the average person to take one OTC [over-the-counter] fish oil capsule a day,” Dr. Mozaffarian added.
He acknowledged that several studies of fish oil supplements failed to show benefit, but several others have. “It’s a confusing field, but the evidence supports benefit from omega 3s,” he concluded.
He discounted the new finding that only people with established CVD or who are at high-risk benefit. “I’m not sure we should make too much of this, because many prior studies showed a lower CVD risk in fish-eating people without prevalent CVD,” he said. The new study “provides important information given its worldwide breadth.”
The new report used data regarding 191,558 people enrolled prospectively in any of four studies. The average age of the participants was 54 years, and 52% were women.
During follow-up, death from any cause occurred in 6% of those without CVD or CVD risk and in 13% of those with these factors. Major CVD events occurred in 5% and 17% of these two subgroups, respectively. To calculate the relative risks between those who ate fish and those who did not, the investigators used standard multivariate adjustment for potential confounders and adjusted for several dietary variables, Dr. Mente said.
Dr. Mohan and Dr. Mente disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mozaffarian has received personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Amarin, America’s Test Kitchen, Barilla, Danone, GEOD, and Motif Food Works, and he has been an adviser to numerous companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with cardiovascular disease who regularly ate fish had significantly fewer major CVD events and there were fewer total deaths, compared with similar individuals who didn’t eat fish, but there was no beneficial link from eating fish among the general population in prospective data collected from more than 191,000 people from 58 countries.
Despite the neutral finding among people without CVD, the finding that eating fish was associated with significant benefit for those with CVD or who were at high risk for CVD confirms the public health importance of regular fish or fish oil consumption, said one expert.
A little over a quarter of those included in the new study had a history of CVD or were at high risk for CVD. In this subgroup of more than 51,000 people, those who consumed on average at least two servings of fish weekly (at least 175 g, or about 6.2 ounces per week) had a significant 16% lower rate of major CVD events during a median follow-up of about 7.5 years.
The rate of all-cause death was a significant 18% lower among people who ate two or more fish portions weekly, compared with those who didn’t, Deepa Mohan, PhD, and associates wrote in their report in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The researchers saw no additional benefit when people regularly ate greater amounts of fish.
“There is a significant protective benefit of fish consumption in people with cardiovascular disease,” said Andrew Mente, PhD, a senior investigator on the study and an epidemiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont..
“This study has important implications for guidelines on fish intake globally. It indicates that increasing fish consumption and particularly oily fish in vascular patients may produce a modest cardiovascular benefit,” he said in a statement released by McMaster.
‘A large body of evidence’ for CVD benefit
The neutral finding of no significant benefit (as well as no harm) regarding either CVD events or total mortality among people without CVD “does not alter the large body of prior observational evidence supporting the cardiac benefits of fish intake in general populations,” noted Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH, in a commentary that accompanies the report by Dr. Mohan and colleagues.
Although the new analysis failed to show a significant association between regular fish consumption and fewer CVD events for people without established CVD or CVD risk, “based on the cumulative evidence from prospective observational studies, randomized clinical trials, and mechanistic and experimental studies, modest fish consumption appears to have some cardiac benefits,” he added.
“Adults should aim to consume about two servings of fish per week, and larger benefits may accrue from nonfried oily (dark meat) fish,” wrote Dr. Mozaffarian, a professor of medicine and nutrition at Tufts University, Boston.
Oily, dark fishes include salmon, tuna steak, mackerel, herring, and sardines. Species such as these contain the highest levels of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid, and docosapentaenoic acid; these nutrients likely underlie the CVD benefits from fish, Dr. Mozaffarian said in an interview with JAMA Internal Medicine that accompanied his commentary. (Dr. Mente also participated.)
“Fish oil lowers heart rate, blood pressure, and triglycerides (at high dosages), increases adiponectin, improves endothelial function, and in some studies improves oxygen consumption in myocardium. If there is benefit from fish it’s from the omega 3s, and all in all the evidence supports this,” but because the evidence is primarily observational, it can only show linkage and cannot prove causation, he explained.
Given the potential benefit and limited risk, “I think everyone should aim to eat two servings of fish each week, preferentially oily fish. That’s very solid,” said Dr. Mozaffarian, who is also a cardiologist and dean of the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science.
The investigators did not have adequate data to compare the associations between outcomes and a diet with oily fish versus less oily fish.
OTC fish oil capsules are ‘very reasonable’
For people who either can’t consume two fish meals a week or want to ensure their omega 3 intake is adequate, “it’s very reasonable for the average person to take one OTC [over-the-counter] fish oil capsule a day,” Dr. Mozaffarian added.
He acknowledged that several studies of fish oil supplements failed to show benefit, but several others have. “It’s a confusing field, but the evidence supports benefit from omega 3s,” he concluded.
He discounted the new finding that only people with established CVD or who are at high-risk benefit. “I’m not sure we should make too much of this, because many prior studies showed a lower CVD risk in fish-eating people without prevalent CVD,” he said. The new study “provides important information given its worldwide breadth.”
The new report used data regarding 191,558 people enrolled prospectively in any of four studies. The average age of the participants was 54 years, and 52% were women.
During follow-up, death from any cause occurred in 6% of those without CVD or CVD risk and in 13% of those with these factors. Major CVD events occurred in 5% and 17% of these two subgroups, respectively. To calculate the relative risks between those who ate fish and those who did not, the investigators used standard multivariate adjustment for potential confounders and adjusted for several dietary variables, Dr. Mente said.
Dr. Mohan and Dr. Mente disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Mozaffarian has received personal fees from Acasti Pharma, Amarin, America’s Test Kitchen, Barilla, Danone, GEOD, and Motif Food Works, and he has been an adviser to numerous companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
JAMA editor resigns over controversial podcast
JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.
More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.
“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.
Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.
Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.
“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”
Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.
“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”
JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.
More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.
“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.
Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.
Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.
“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”
Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.
“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”
JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .
JAMA editor in chief Howard Bauchner, MD, apologized to JAMA staff and stakeholders and asked for and received Dr. Livingston’s resignation, according to a statement from AMA CEO James Madara.
More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the podcast, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”
It appears they are now getting their wish. Dr. Bauchner announced that the journal’s oversight committee is investigating how the podcast and a tweet promoting the episode were developed, reviewed, and ultimately posted.
“This investigation and report of its findings will be thorough and completed rapidly,” Dr. Bauchner said.
Dr. Livingston, the host of the podcast, has been heavily criticized across social media. During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said: “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”
The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released last week, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”
Dr. Katz is an editor at JAMA Internal Medicine and CEO of NYC Health + Hospitals in New York.
Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”
The incident was met with anger and confusion in the medical community.
Herbert C. Smitherman, MD, vice dean of diversity and community affairs at Wayne State University, Detroit, noted after hearing the podcast that it was a symptom of a much larger problem.
“At its core, this podcast had racist tendencies. Those attitudes are why you don’t have as many articles by Black and Brown people in JAMA,” he said. “People’s attitudes, whether conscious or unconscious, are what drive the policies and practices which create the structural racism.”
Dr. Katz responded to the backlash last week with the following statement: “Systemic racism exists in our country. The disparate effects of the pandemic have made this painfully clear in New York City and across the country.
“As clinicians, we must understand how these structures and policies have a direct impact on the health outcomes of the patients and communities we serve. It is woefully naive to say that no physician is a racist just because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade it, or that we should avoid the term ‘systematic racism’ because it makes people uncomfortable. We must and can do better.”
JAMA, an independent arm of the AMA, is taking other steps to address concerns. Its executive publisher, Thomas Easley, held an employee town hall this week, and said JAMA acknowledges that “structural racism is real, pernicious, and pervasive in health care.” The journal is also starting an “end-to-end review” of all editorial processes across all JAMA publications. Finally, the journal will also create a new associate editor’s position who will provide “insight and counsel” on racism and structural racism in health care.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com .