MDedge Cardiology

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the intentional laceration technique of diseased valve leaflets called BASILICA is effective and reasonably safe for preventing coronary artery obstruction, according to a late-breaking study presented at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

In a series of 214 patients entered into a registry over a recent 30-month period, leaflets posing risk were effectively traversed with the technique in 95% of cases, and complication rates were reasonably low with 30-day stroke and death rate of 3.4%, reported Jaffar M. Khan, BMBCH, PhD, cardiovascular branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The rate of complications is acceptable given the large potential risk, according to Dr. Khan. If coronary obstruction occurs, reported mortality rates have been as high as 50%. The 1-year survival rate in the registry following BASILICA was 84%.
 

Results should ‘push people toward BASILICA’

The acronym BASILICA stands for bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction. In the procedure, performed immediately before TAVR, guidewires are introduced to first traverse and then lacerate aortic leaflets threatening obstruction of a coronary artery.

In cases where diseased valve leaflets pose a risk of coronary obstruction, most interventionalists “are comfortable with surgery when patients are at low or intermediate risk, but the choices for high-risk patients are a snorkel stent or BASILICA. Given the limits of snorkel stenting, these data should be reassuring and push people toward BASILICA,” Dr. Khan said.

The 214 patients were entered into the registry from June 2015 to December 2020. The mean age was 74.9 years. Of valves treated, 73% were failed bioprosthetic devices. The remaining were native aortic valves. Solo BASILICA was performed in most patients, but 21.5% underwent a doppio procedure, meaning the laceration of two leaflets.

Despite BASILICA, 10 patients (4.7%) had some degree of coronary obstruction, including 5 with partial obstruction of the main coronary artery and 1 with partial obstruction of the right coronary artery. All of these partial obstructions were successfully treated with orthotopic stents.

An obstruction of the right coronary artery was successfully treated with balloon angioplasty. Another patient with significant left main coronary artery obstruction required cardiopulmonary bypass but was successfully treated with snorkel stenting. Of two patients with complete obstruction of the left main coronary artery caused by the skirt of the TAVR device, one died in hospital despite several maneuvers to restore perfusion.

Procedural complications included a mitral chord laceration, which subsequently led to valve replacement, and three guidewire transversals into surrounding tissue that did not result in serious sequelae. Hypotension requiring pressors occurred in 8.5%.

There was a “slight trend” for worse outcomes in those undergoing doppio rather than solo BASILICA, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Cerebral embolic protection was offered to a minority of patients in this series. The trend for a lower risk of stroke in this group did not reach significance, Dr. Khan reported.
 

Best for high-volume centers, for now

Although these data support the conclusion that BASILICA “is feasible in a real-world setting,” Dr. Khan acknowledged that BASILICA might not be appropriate at low-volume centers. Dr. Khan cited data that indicates obstruction of a coronary artery by a diseased leaflet occurs in less than 1% of TAVR cases.

“Not every site doing a handful of TAVRs is going to want to tackle these cases, but those working in a high-volume center will from time to time encounter patients with coronary obstruction or who are at increased risk,” Dr. Khan said.

In North America, there has been a proctoring program to disseminate the skills required to perform BASILICA, according to Dr. Khan, who explained that proctors typically participate in two or three cases before these are performed without supervision.

So far, the uptake of BASILICA has been limited.

“BASILICA has not been catching on in EUROPE,” said Didier F. Loulmet, MD, chief of cardiac surgery at Tisch Hospital, New York University Langone Health. There might be several reasons, but Dr. Loulmet said that lack of a comparable proctoring program is one factor.”

“This is a relatively complex procedure performed in a small number of patients, so building up expertise is quite a challenge, particularly in small centers,” he added. He encouraged proctoring as “the way that it has to be propagated.”

The results presented by Dr. Khan on March 6 at CRT 2021 were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Dr. Khan has patents on several devices, including catheters to lacerate valve leaflet. Dr. Loulmet reported no potential conflicts of interest.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the intentional laceration technique of diseased valve leaflets called BASILICA is effective and reasonably safe for preventing coronary artery obstruction, according to a late-breaking study presented at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

In a series of 214 patients entered into a registry over a recent 30-month period, leaflets posing risk were effectively traversed with the technique in 95% of cases, and complication rates were reasonably low with 30-day stroke and death rate of 3.4%, reported Jaffar M. Khan, BMBCH, PhD, cardiovascular branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The rate of complications is acceptable given the large potential risk, according to Dr. Khan. If coronary obstruction occurs, reported mortality rates have been as high as 50%. The 1-year survival rate in the registry following BASILICA was 84%.
 

Results should ‘push people toward BASILICA’

The acronym BASILICA stands for bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction. In the procedure, performed immediately before TAVR, guidewires are introduced to first traverse and then lacerate aortic leaflets threatening obstruction of a coronary artery.

In cases where diseased valve leaflets pose a risk of coronary obstruction, most interventionalists “are comfortable with surgery when patients are at low or intermediate risk, but the choices for high-risk patients are a snorkel stent or BASILICA. Given the limits of snorkel stenting, these data should be reassuring and push people toward BASILICA,” Dr. Khan said.

The 214 patients were entered into the registry from June 2015 to December 2020. The mean age was 74.9 years. Of valves treated, 73% were failed bioprosthetic devices. The remaining were native aortic valves. Solo BASILICA was performed in most patients, but 21.5% underwent a doppio procedure, meaning the laceration of two leaflets.

Despite BASILICA, 10 patients (4.7%) had some degree of coronary obstruction, including 5 with partial obstruction of the main coronary artery and 1 with partial obstruction of the right coronary artery. All of these partial obstructions were successfully treated with orthotopic stents.

An obstruction of the right coronary artery was successfully treated with balloon angioplasty. Another patient with significant left main coronary artery obstruction required cardiopulmonary bypass but was successfully treated with snorkel stenting. Of two patients with complete obstruction of the left main coronary artery caused by the skirt of the TAVR device, one died in hospital despite several maneuvers to restore perfusion.

Procedural complications included a mitral chord laceration, which subsequently led to valve replacement, and three guidewire transversals into surrounding tissue that did not result in serious sequelae. Hypotension requiring pressors occurred in 8.5%.

There was a “slight trend” for worse outcomes in those undergoing doppio rather than solo BASILICA, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Cerebral embolic protection was offered to a minority of patients in this series. The trend for a lower risk of stroke in this group did not reach significance, Dr. Khan reported.
 

Best for high-volume centers, for now

Although these data support the conclusion that BASILICA “is feasible in a real-world setting,” Dr. Khan acknowledged that BASILICA might not be appropriate at low-volume centers. Dr. Khan cited data that indicates obstruction of a coronary artery by a diseased leaflet occurs in less than 1% of TAVR cases.

“Not every site doing a handful of TAVRs is going to want to tackle these cases, but those working in a high-volume center will from time to time encounter patients with coronary obstruction or who are at increased risk,” Dr. Khan said.

In North America, there has been a proctoring program to disseminate the skills required to perform BASILICA, according to Dr. Khan, who explained that proctors typically participate in two or three cases before these are performed without supervision.

So far, the uptake of BASILICA has been limited.

“BASILICA has not been catching on in EUROPE,” said Didier F. Loulmet, MD, chief of cardiac surgery at Tisch Hospital, New York University Langone Health. There might be several reasons, but Dr. Loulmet said that lack of a comparable proctoring program is one factor.”

“This is a relatively complex procedure performed in a small number of patients, so building up expertise is quite a challenge, particularly in small centers,” he added. He encouraged proctoring as “the way that it has to be propagated.”

The results presented by Dr. Khan on March 6 at CRT 2021 were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Dr. Khan has patents on several devices, including catheters to lacerate valve leaflet. Dr. Loulmet reported no potential conflicts of interest.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the intentional laceration technique of diseased valve leaflets called BASILICA is effective and reasonably safe for preventing coronary artery obstruction, according to a late-breaking study presented at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

In a series of 214 patients entered into a registry over a recent 30-month period, leaflets posing risk were effectively traversed with the technique in 95% of cases, and complication rates were reasonably low with 30-day stroke and death rate of 3.4%, reported Jaffar M. Khan, BMBCH, PhD, cardiovascular branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

The rate of complications is acceptable given the large potential risk, according to Dr. Khan. If coronary obstruction occurs, reported mortality rates have been as high as 50%. The 1-year survival rate in the registry following BASILICA was 84%.
 

Results should ‘push people toward BASILICA’

The acronym BASILICA stands for bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction. In the procedure, performed immediately before TAVR, guidewires are introduced to first traverse and then lacerate aortic leaflets threatening obstruction of a coronary artery.

In cases where diseased valve leaflets pose a risk of coronary obstruction, most interventionalists “are comfortable with surgery when patients are at low or intermediate risk, but the choices for high-risk patients are a snorkel stent or BASILICA. Given the limits of snorkel stenting, these data should be reassuring and push people toward BASILICA,” Dr. Khan said.

The 214 patients were entered into the registry from June 2015 to December 2020. The mean age was 74.9 years. Of valves treated, 73% were failed bioprosthetic devices. The remaining were native aortic valves. Solo BASILICA was performed in most patients, but 21.5% underwent a doppio procedure, meaning the laceration of two leaflets.

Despite BASILICA, 10 patients (4.7%) had some degree of coronary obstruction, including 5 with partial obstruction of the main coronary artery and 1 with partial obstruction of the right coronary artery. All of these partial obstructions were successfully treated with orthotopic stents.

An obstruction of the right coronary artery was successfully treated with balloon angioplasty. Another patient with significant left main coronary artery obstruction required cardiopulmonary bypass but was successfully treated with snorkel stenting. Of two patients with complete obstruction of the left main coronary artery caused by the skirt of the TAVR device, one died in hospital despite several maneuvers to restore perfusion.

Procedural complications included a mitral chord laceration, which subsequently led to valve replacement, and three guidewire transversals into surrounding tissue that did not result in serious sequelae. Hypotension requiring pressors occurred in 8.5%.

There was a “slight trend” for worse outcomes in those undergoing doppio rather than solo BASILICA, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Cerebral embolic protection was offered to a minority of patients in this series. The trend for a lower risk of stroke in this group did not reach significance, Dr. Khan reported.
 

Best for high-volume centers, for now

Although these data support the conclusion that BASILICA “is feasible in a real-world setting,” Dr. Khan acknowledged that BASILICA might not be appropriate at low-volume centers. Dr. Khan cited data that indicates obstruction of a coronary artery by a diseased leaflet occurs in less than 1% of TAVR cases.

“Not every site doing a handful of TAVRs is going to want to tackle these cases, but those working in a high-volume center will from time to time encounter patients with coronary obstruction or who are at increased risk,” Dr. Khan said.

In North America, there has been a proctoring program to disseminate the skills required to perform BASILICA, according to Dr. Khan, who explained that proctors typically participate in two or three cases before these are performed without supervision.

So far, the uptake of BASILICA has been limited.

“BASILICA has not been catching on in EUROPE,” said Didier F. Loulmet, MD, chief of cardiac surgery at Tisch Hospital, New York University Langone Health. There might be several reasons, but Dr. Loulmet said that lack of a comparable proctoring program is one factor.”

“This is a relatively complex procedure performed in a small number of patients, so building up expertise is quite a challenge, particularly in small centers,” he added. He encouraged proctoring as “the way that it has to be propagated.”

The results presented by Dr. Khan on March 6 at CRT 2021 were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Dr. Khan has patents on several devices, including catheters to lacerate valve leaflet. Dr. Loulmet reported no potential conflicts of interest.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both high and low serum sodium levels are associated with adverse outcomes for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, new research suggests.

In the retrospective study of 488 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at one of two London hospitals between February and May 2020, hypernatremia (defined as serum sodium level >145 mmol/L) at any time point during hospital stay was associated with a threefold increase in inpatient mortality.

Hyponatremia (serum sodium level <135 mmol/L) was associated with twice the likelihood of requiring advanced ventilatory support. In-hospital mortality was also increased among patients with hypovolemic hyponatremia.

“Serum sodium values could be used in clinical practice to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of poor outcomes who would benefit from more intensive monitoring and judicious rehydration,” Ploutarchos Tzoulis, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their article, which was published online on Feb. 24, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

The findings will be presented at the upcoming news conference held by the Endocrine Society
 

Should sodium be included in a risk calculator for COVID-19?

Dr. Tzoulis, professor of endocrinology at the University College London Medical School, said in an interview that “sodium could be incorporated in risk calculators across other routine biomarkers, such as white cell count, lymphocytes, and CRP [C-reactive protein], in order to provide a tool for dynamic risk stratification throughout the clinical course of COVID-19 and assist clinical decision-making.”

Moreover, he said, “we should follow less conservative strategies in the rate and amount of fluid resuscitation in order to prevent hypernatremia, which is induced by negative fluid balance and can often be iatrogenic.”

Asked to comment, Steven Q. Simpson, MD, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, said that the article is missing key results that would assist in interpreting of the findings.

“Data regarding diuretic use and sparing of fluid administration are not in the paper. ... It is simply not possible to tell whether serum sodium is a ‘predictor’ ... or if it is a side effect of other issues or actions taken by physicians in patients who are progressing poorly.

“To say that sodium needs to be included in a risk calculator is to subtly suggest that there is some causal association with mortality, and that has quite clearly not been established,” stressed Dr. Simpson, who is president of the American College of Chest Physicians but was not speaking for the organization.

He added: “The data are interesting, but not actionable. It is common practice in critical care medicine to adjust water and salt intake to maintain serum sodium within the normal range, so the paper really doesn’t change any behavior.”

Dr. Tzoulis said in an interview that, despite not having electronic medical record data on diuretic use or fluid input and output, “our acute physicians and intensivists at both study sites have been adamant that they’ve not routinely used diuretics in COVID-19 patients. Diuretics have been sparingly used in our cohort, and also the frequency of pulmonary edema was reported as below 5%.”

Regarding volume of fluid intake, Dr. Tzoulis noted, “At our hospital sites, the strategy has been that of cautious fluid resuscitation. In fact, the amount of fluid given has been reported by our physicians and intensivists as ‘on purpose much more conservative than the usual one adopted in patients with community-acquired pneumonia at risk of respiratory failure.’ ”
 

Hyper- and hyponatremia linked to adverse COVID-19 outcomes

In the study, 5.3% of the 488 patients had hypernatremia at hospital presentation, and 24.6% had hyponatremia. Of note, only 19% of those with hyponatremia underwent laboratory workup to determine the etiology. Of those, three quarters had hypovolemic hyponatremia, determined on the basis of a urinary sodium cutoff of 30 mmol/L.

The total in-hospital mortality rate was 31.1%. There was a strong, although nonsignificant, trend toward higher mortality in association with sodium status at admission. Death rates were 28.4%, 30.8%, and 46.1% for those who were normonatremic, hyponatremic, and hypernatremic, respectively (P = .07). Baseline serum sodium levels didn’t differ between survivors (137 mmol/L) and nonsurvivors (138 mmol/L).

In multivariable analysis, the occurrence of hypernatremia at any point during the first 5 days in the hospital was among three independent risk factors for higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.74; P = .02). The other risk factors were older age and higher CRP level.

Overall, hyponatremia was not associated with death (P = .41).

During hospitalization, 37.9% of patients remained normonatremic; 36.9% experienced hyponatremia; 10.9% had hypernatremia; and 14.3% had both conditions at some point during their stay.

In-hospital mortality was 21% among those with normonatremia, compared with 56.6% for those with hypernatremia (odds ratio, 3.05; P = .0038) and 45.7% for those with both (OR, 2.25; P < .0001).

The 28.3% mortality rate in the overall group that experienced hyponatremia didn’t differ significantly from the 21.1% in the normonatremic group (OR, 1.34; P = .16). However, the death rate was 40.9% among the subgroup that developed hypovolemic hyponatremia, significantly higher than the normonatremic group (OR, 2.59, P = .0017).

The incidence of hyponatremia decreased from 24.6% at admission to 14.1% 5 days later, whereas the frequency of hypernatremia rose from 5.3% to 13.8%.
 

Key finding: Link between hospital-acquired hypernatremia and death

“The key novel finding of our study was that hospital-acquired hypernatremia, rather than hypernatremia at admission, was a predictor for in-hospital mortality, with the worst prognosis being reported in patients with the largest increase in serum sodium in the first 5 days of hospitalization,” noted Dr. Tzoulis and colleagues.

Hypernatremia was present in 29.6% of nonsurvivors, compared with 5.2% in survivors.

Among 120 patients with hyponatremia at admission, 31.7% received advanced respiratory support, compared with 17.5% and 7.7% of those with normonatremia or hypernatremia, respectively (OR, 2.18; P = .0011).

In contrast, there was no difference in the proportions needing ventilatory support between those with hypernatremia and those with normonatremia (16.7% vs. 12.4%; OR, 1.44; P = .39).

Acute kidney injury occurred in 181 patients (37.1%). It was not related to serum sodium concentration at any time point.

Dr. Tzoulis and Dr. Simpson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Being obese and pregnant raises the risk for cardiac complications in women with preexisting heart disease, new research suggests, highlighting the need for earlier interventions in this high-risk population.

The analysis of 790 pregnancies revealed that 23% of women with obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2, had a cardiac event during pregnancy versus 14% of women with normal body weight (P = .006).

The difference was driven largely by an increase in heart failure (8% vs. 3%; P = .02), although arrhythmias also trended higher in obese women (14% vs. 10%; P = .19).

Nearly half of the women with obesity and a cardiac event presented in the postpartum period (47%).

In multivariate analysis, both obesity and Canadian Cardiac Disease in Pregnancy Study (CARPREG) II risk score were independent predictors of cardiac events (odds ratios for both, 1.7), the investigators, led by Birgit Pfaller, MD, University of Toronto, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Although obesity has been linked to worse pregnancy outcomes and higher cardiovascular risk after delivery in the general population, the authors noted that this is the first study to examine its effect on outcomes in women with heart disease.

“We wanted to look at this high-risk group of women that had preexisting heart disease, but in addition had obesity, to try and find out if there was a kind of double hit for these women – and that, in the end, is what we found. It’s not just simply having heart disease, not simply having obesity, but the combination that’s problematic,” senior author and cardiologist Candice Silversides, MD, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The findings are concerning given the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. National data from 2018 show that slightly more than half of women who gave birth in the United States were significantly overweight or obese before becoming pregnant.

Similarly, in the present analysis of 600 women in the CARPREG study who gave birth from 2004 to 2014, nearly 1 in 5 pregnancies (19%) occurred in women with obesity and 25% were in overweight women.

Obese women were significantly more likely than those without obesity to have coronary artery disease (6% vs. 2%), cardiomyopathies (19% vs. 8%) and left ventricular dysfunction (19% vs. 12%) and to be hypertensive or have a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (13% vs. 3%).

Preeclampsia developed in 32 women during the index pregnancy and 69% of these women were obese or overweight. Cardiac event rates were similar in women with or without preeclampsia but trended higher in women with preeclampsia with versus without obesity (36% vs. 14%; P = .20).

The ill effects of obesity were also reflected in fetal and neonatal events. Overall, 43% of women with obesity and 33% of normal-weight women had at least one fetal event (P = .02), with higher rates of preterm birth (19% vs. 10%; P = .005) and respiratory distress syndrome (8% vs. 3%; P = .02) in women with obesity. Congenital cardiac malformations were present in 6% of women in both groups.

Taken together, the composite of cardiac events, preeclampsia, or fetal events was significantly more common in women with obesity than in normal-weight women (56% vs. 41%; P = .002).

“We’ve spent the last number of years trying to research and understand what the drivers of these adverse outcomes are in this high-risk pregnant cohort, but on a bigger picture the real issue is how do we start intervening in a meaningful way,” Dr. Silversides said.

Like many in the burgeoning field of cardio-obstetrics, the team proposed a multidisciplinary approach that stresses preconception counseling, educating pregnant women with heart disease and obesity about their risks, ensuring that dietary advice, weight-gain recommendations, and comorbidities are addressed as part of routine care, and providing postpartum surveillance.

Preconception screening “has been the recommendation for a long, long time; it’s just that it doesn’t always happen in reality,” she said. “Many pregnancies aren’t planned and not all women are filtered into preconception counseling. So sometimes you’ll do it at the first antenatal visit and try to ensure women are educated but optimally you want to do it well in advance of pregnancy.”

Part of that preconception counseling “should also include giving them appropriate advice for contraception, if what they want to do is avoid pregnancy,” added Dr. Silversides.

Garima Sharma, MD, Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial that the adverse events observed in this high-risk cohort have “important implications for cardio-obstetricians and should be incorporated in routine prepregnancy and antenatal counseling, monitoring, and risk stratification for women with existing cardiovascular disease.”

They pointed to a paucity of data incorporating maternal prepregnancy obesity and gestational weight gain in risk prediction and called for larger population-based studies on the additive impact of obesity severity on predicting adverse cardiac events in women with existing cardiovascular disease.

Randomized trials are also urgently needed to evaluate the effect of nutritional and behavioral interventions in pregnancy on short- and long-term outcomes in mother and child.

“As the obesity epidemic continues to grow and public health interventions promoting lifestyle changes for obesity management remain a major challenge, maternal obesity may prove to be the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of sustainable national efforts to reduce maternal mortality and improve health equity. This is a call to action,” Dr. Sharma and colleagues concluded.

The investigators noted that the study was conducted at a single center and used self-reported pregnancy weight collected at the first antenatal visit, which may have underestimated obesity rates. Other limitations are that weight changes over the course of pregnancy were not studied and there was a limited number of women with a body mass index of 40 or higher.

The study was supported by a grant from the Allan E. Tiffin Trust, Toronto General and Western Hospital Foundation, and by a donation from Mrs. Josephine Rogers, Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Silversides is supported by the Miles Nadal Chair in Pregnancy and Heart Disease. Dr. Sharma and colleagues disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Seven weeks appears to be the ideal amount of time to delay surgery, when possible, after someone tests positive for COVID-19, researchers in the United Kingdom report.

BraunS/Getty Images

Risk for death was about 3.5 to 4 times higher in the first 6 weeks after surgery among more than 3,000 people with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis compared with patients without COVID-19. After 7 weeks, the 30-day mortality rate dropped to a baseline level.

The study was published online March 9 in Anaesthesia.

Surgery should be further delayed for people who remain symptomatic at 7 weeks post diagnosis, lead author Dmitri Nepogodiev, MBChB, said in an interview.

“In this group we recommend waiting until COVID-19 symptoms resolve, if possible. However, our study did not capture specific data on long COVID … so we are unable to make specific recommendations for this group,” said Dr. Nepogodiev, research fellow at the NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery at the University of Birmingham (England).

“This should be an area for future research,” he added.

The international, multicenter, prospective cohort study is notable for its sheer size – more than 15,000 investigators reported outcomes for 140,231 surgical patients from 1,674 hospitals across 116 countries. In total, 2.2% of these patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 prior to surgery.

Surgery of any type performed in October 2020 was assessed. A greater proportion of patients with a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis had emergency surgery, 44%, compared with 30% of people who never had a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Most patients were asymptomatic at the time of surgery, either because they never experienced COVID-19 symptoms or their symptoms resolved. The 30-day mortality rate was the primary outcome.
 

Death rates among surgical patients with preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis

Comparing the timing of surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis vs. 30-day mortality yielded the following results:

• 0 to 2 weeks – 9.1% mortality.
• 3 to 4 weeks – 6.9%.
• 5 to 6 weeks – 5.5%.
• 7 weeks or longer – 2.0%..

For comparison, the 30-day mortality rate for surgical patients without a preoperative COVID-19 diagnosis was 1.4%. A COVID-19 diagnosis more than 7 weeks before surgery did not make a significant difference on outcomes.
 

The ‘why’ remains unknown

The reasons for the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and higher postoperative death rates remain unknown. However, Dr. Nepogodiev speculated that it could be related to “some degree of lung injury, even if patients are initially asymptomatic.”

Intubation and mechanical ventilation during surgery could exacerbate the existing lung injury, he said, thereby leading to more severe COVID-19.

In fact, Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues found that postoperative pulmonary complications followed a pattern similar to the findings on death. They reported higher rates of pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and unexpected reventilation in the first 6 weeks following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Again, at 7 weeks and beyond, the rates returned to be relatively the same as those for people who never had COVID-19.

“Waiting for 7 or more weeks may allow time for the initial COVID-19 injury to resolve,” Dr. Nepogodiev said.
 

‘An important study’

“This is an important study of postoperative mortality among patients recovered from COVID-19,” Adrian Diaz, MD, MPH, said in an interview when asked to comment.

The large cohort and numerous practice settings are among the strengths of the research, said Dr. Diaz, of the University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation in Ann Arbor. He was lead author of a June 2020 review article on elective surgery in the time of COVID-19, published in The American Journal of Surgery.

“As with nearly all studies of this nature, results must be interpreted on a case-by-case basis for individual patients. However, this study does add important information for patients and providers in helping them have an informed discussion on the timing of surgery,” said Dr. Diaz, a fellow in the Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy and a resident in general surgery at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Dr. Nepogodiev and colleagues included both urgent and elective surgeries in the study. Dr. Diaz said this was a potential limitation because emergency operations “should never be delayed, by definition.” Lack of indications for the surgeries and information on cause of death were additional limitations.

Future research should evaluate any benefit in delaying surgery longer than 7 or more weeks, Dr. Diaz added, perhaps looking specifically at 10, 12, or 14 weeks, or considering outcomes as a continuous variable. This would help health care providers “garner more insight into risk and benefits of delaying surgery beyond 7 weeks.”

Dr. Nepogodiev and Dr. Diaz disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The study had multiple funding sources, including the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, the British Association of Surgical Oncology, and Medtronic.

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

Officials have previously linked being overweight or obese to a greater risk for more severe COVID-19. A report today from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds numbers and some nuance to the association.

Data from nearly 150,000 U.S. adults hospitalized with COVID-19 nationwide indicate that risk for more severe disease outcomes increases along with body mass index (BMI). The risk of COVID-19–related hospitalization and death associated with obesity was particularly high among people younger than 65.

“As clinicians develop care plans for COVID-19 patients, they should consider the risk for severe outcomes in patients with higher BMIs, especially for those with severe obesity,” the researchers note. They add that their findings suggest “progressively intensive management of COVID-19 might be needed for patients with more severe obesity.”

People with COVID-19 close to the border between a healthy and overweight BMI – from 23.7 kg/m² to 25.9 kg/m² – had the lowest risks for adverse outcomes.

The study was published online today in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
 

Greater need for critical care

The risk of ICU admission was particularly associated with severe obesity. For example, those with a BMI in the 40-44.9 kg/m² category had a 6% increased risk, which jumped to 16% higher among those with a BMI of 45 or greater.

Compared to people with a healthy BMI, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was 12% more likely among overweight adults with a BMI of 25-29.2. The risked jumped to 108% greater among the most obese people, those with a BMI of 45 or greater, lead CDC researcher Lyudmyla Kompaniyets, PhD, and colleagues reported.

Moreover, the risks for hospitalization and death increased in a dose-response relationship with obesity.

For example, risks of being hospitalized were 7% greater for adults with a BMI between 30 and 34.9 and climbed to 33% greater for those with a BMI of 45. Risks were calculated as adjusted relative risks compared with people with a healthy BMI between 18.5 and 24.9.

Interestingly, being underweight was associated with elevated risk for COVID-19 hospitalization as well. For example, people with a BMI of less than 18.5 had a 20% greater chance of admission vs. people in the healthy BMI range. Unknown underlying medical conditions or issues related to nutrition or immune function could be contributing factors, the researchers note.
 

Elevated risk of dying

The risk of death in adults with obesity ranged from 8% higher in the 30-34.9 range up to 61% greater for those with a BMI of 45.

Chronic inflammation or impaired lung function from excess weight are possible reasons that higher BMI imparts greater risk, the researchers note.

The CDC researchers evaluated 148,494 adults from 238 hospitals participating in PHD-SR database. Because the study was limited to people hospitalized with COVID-19, the findings may not apply to all adults with COVID-19.

Another potential limitation is that investigators were unable to calculate BMI for all patients in the database because about 28% of participating hospitals did not report height and weight.

The study authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. 

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over The Counter Use (Cue OTC Test, Cue Health).

The Cue OTC Test is the first molecular diagnostic test available to consumers without a prescription.

The test detects genetic material from SARS-CoV-2 present in the nostrils and delivers results in about 20 minutes to the user’s mobile smart device via the Cue Health app.

In testing, the Cue OTC Test correctly identified 96% of positive nasal swab samples from individuals known to have symptoms and correctly identified 100% of positive samples from individuals without symptoms.

The test is intended for use in people aged 2 years and older with and without symptoms.

“With this authorization, consumers can purchase and self-administer one of the easiest, fastest, and most accurate tests without a prescription,” Clint Sever, cofounder and chief product officer of Cue Health, said in a news release.

“This FDA authorization will help us improve patient outcomes with a solution that provides the accuracy of central lab tests, with the speed and accessibility required to address emergent global health issues,” he said.

Cue Health expects to produce more than 100,000 single-use test kits per day by this summer. Dena Cook, the company’s chief communications officer, told this news organization that the company hasn’t announced pricing information yet, but the price will be “comparable” to other price points and other products on the market.  

“The FDA continues to prioritize the availability of more at-home testing options in response to the pandemic,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“Cue COVID-19 Test for Home and Over-the-Counter Use provides access to accurate and reliable testing at home, without a prescription. The FDA will continue to work collaboratively with test developers to advance effective testing options for doctors, clinicians, and the public,” he said.

In June, the FDA granted an EUA to Cue Health’s COVID-19 test for use in clinical and point-of-care settings.

The test is currently being used in hospitals, physicians’ offices, and dental clinics, as well as schools, essential businesses, nursing homes, and other congregate-care facilities. The test is also being distributed through a program led by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services across several states.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Levels of insulinlike factor 3 (INSL3) drop noticeably in men who have abused anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS), even well after stoppage. The results suggest that the effects of AAS use on testosterone-producing Leydig cells may be long-lasting, as some clinicians have suspected. Although there is some variation of INSL3 levels among AAS users, the metric is more accurate than testosterone levels and could be a key element of future diagnostic tests.

Those are the conclusions of a new study, led by Jon Jarløv Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen*, published March 9, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  

Results mirror clinical experience  

The drop in levels, both among current and past users, is in keeping with clinical experience of endocrinologists, according to Channa Jayasena, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College London. He suspects lasting damage in former and current users who come to him when they discover their sperm count is low. "How long that damage lasts is another matter," Dr. Jayasena, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.   

In search of a reliable measure  

Low testosterone levels have been shown to be associated with AAS use in some studies, but not in others. That inconsistency led the researchers in search of a more reliable measure. "Serum testosterone is not a stable marker but can fluctuate considerably within minutes to hours, whereas serum insulinlike factor 3 [levels] do not," said Dr. Rasmussen.  
INSL3 appears to be involved in bone metabolism regulation as well as spermatogenesis.  

Dr. Rasmussen agreed that INSL3 levels could be clinically useful for tracking Leydig cell function, especially in combination with other hormone markers like serum testosterone and gonadotropins. The group is now considering a clinical trial for treatment of hypogonadal men following illicit use of anabolic steroids, which will include INSL3 serum levels as a planned endpoint.  

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of men aged 18-50 years who had participated in recreational strength training. Cohort 1 included 37 AAS users, 33 former users, and 30 never users. Cohort 2 included 9 current users, 9 former users, and 14 never users. They assigned participant AAS use status based on self-reporting, along with measurement of biomedical parameters including gonadotropins, sexual hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and hematocrit.  
Compared with never users' median value of 0.59 mcg/L, INSL3 serum levels were lower among current AAS (median, 0.04 mcg/L; P < .001) and former AAS (0.39 mcg/L; P = .005) users. A linear multivariate regression that adjusted for luteinizing hormone, SHBG, age, body-fat percentage, smoking status, use of other illicit drugs found lower levels among former users, compared with never users (mean difference, -0.16 mcg/L; P = .011). 

An analysis of elapsed duration since AAS cessation found longer duration of AAS use was associated with reduced INSL3 levels (mean difference, -0.08; P = .022). 

Although serum inhibin B levels reached the levels of never users after about 21 months, and luteinizing hormone levels recovered in about 12 months, neither serum testosterone nor INSL3 levels recovered in former users. 

The study authors received funding from Anti Doping Denmark. Dr. Jayasena has no relevant financial disclosures. 

*Dr. Rasmussen's affiliation has been corrected.

Levels of insulinlike factor 3 (INSL3) drop noticeably in men who have abused anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS), even well after stoppage. The results suggest that the effects of AAS use on testosterone-producing Leydig cells may be long-lasting, as some clinicians have suspected. Although there is some variation of INSL3 levels among AAS users, the metric is more accurate than testosterone levels and could be a key element of future diagnostic tests.

Those are the conclusions of a new study, led by Jon Jarløv Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen*, published March 9, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  

Results mirror clinical experience  

The drop in levels, both among current and past users, is in keeping with clinical experience of endocrinologists, according to Channa Jayasena, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College London. He suspects lasting damage in former and current users who come to him when they discover their sperm count is low. "How long that damage lasts is another matter," Dr. Jayasena, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.   

In search of a reliable measure  

Low testosterone levels have been shown to be associated with AAS use in some studies, but not in others. That inconsistency led the researchers in search of a more reliable measure. "Serum testosterone is not a stable marker but can fluctuate considerably within minutes to hours, whereas serum insulinlike factor 3 [levels] do not," said Dr. Rasmussen.  
INSL3 appears to be involved in bone metabolism regulation as well as spermatogenesis.  

Dr. Rasmussen agreed that INSL3 levels could be clinically useful for tracking Leydig cell function, especially in combination with other hormone markers like serum testosterone and gonadotropins. The group is now considering a clinical trial for treatment of hypogonadal men following illicit use of anabolic steroids, which will include INSL3 serum levels as a planned endpoint.  

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of men aged 18-50 years who had participated in recreational strength training. Cohort 1 included 37 AAS users, 33 former users, and 30 never users. Cohort 2 included 9 current users, 9 former users, and 14 never users. They assigned participant AAS use status based on self-reporting, along with measurement of biomedical parameters including gonadotropins, sexual hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and hematocrit.  
Compared with never users' median value of 0.59 mcg/L, INSL3 serum levels were lower among current AAS (median, 0.04 mcg/L; P < .001) and former AAS (0.39 mcg/L; P = .005) users. A linear multivariate regression that adjusted for luteinizing hormone, SHBG, age, body-fat percentage, smoking status, use of other illicit drugs found lower levels among former users, compared with never users (mean difference, -0.16 mcg/L; P = .011). 

An analysis of elapsed duration since AAS cessation found longer duration of AAS use was associated with reduced INSL3 levels (mean difference, -0.08; P = .022). 

Although serum inhibin B levels reached the levels of never users after about 21 months, and luteinizing hormone levels recovered in about 12 months, neither serum testosterone nor INSL3 levels recovered in former users. 

The study authors received funding from Anti Doping Denmark. Dr. Jayasena has no relevant financial disclosures. 

*Dr. Rasmussen's affiliation has been corrected.

Levels of insulinlike factor 3 (INSL3) drop noticeably in men who have abused anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS), even well after stoppage. The results suggest that the effects of AAS use on testosterone-producing Leydig cells may be long-lasting, as some clinicians have suspected. Although there is some variation of INSL3 levels among AAS users, the metric is more accurate than testosterone levels and could be a key element of future diagnostic tests.

Those are the conclusions of a new study, led by Jon Jarløv Rasmussen, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen*, published March 9, 2021, in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  

Results mirror clinical experience  

The drop in levels, both among current and past users, is in keeping with clinical experience of endocrinologists, according to Channa Jayasena, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at Imperial College London. He suspects lasting damage in former and current users who come to him when they discover their sperm count is low. "How long that damage lasts is another matter," Dr. Jayasena, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.   

In search of a reliable measure  

Low testosterone levels have been shown to be associated with AAS use in some studies, but not in others. That inconsistency led the researchers in search of a more reliable measure. "Serum testosterone is not a stable marker but can fluctuate considerably within minutes to hours, whereas serum insulinlike factor 3 [levels] do not," said Dr. Rasmussen.  
INSL3 appears to be involved in bone metabolism regulation as well as spermatogenesis.  

Dr. Rasmussen agreed that INSL3 levels could be clinically useful for tracking Leydig cell function, especially in combination with other hormone markers like serum testosterone and gonadotropins. The group is now considering a clinical trial for treatment of hypogonadal men following illicit use of anabolic steroids, which will include INSL3 serum levels as a planned endpoint.  

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional study of men aged 18-50 years who had participated in recreational strength training. Cohort 1 included 37 AAS users, 33 former users, and 30 never users. Cohort 2 included 9 current users, 9 former users, and 14 never users. They assigned participant AAS use status based on self-reporting, along with measurement of biomedical parameters including gonadotropins, sexual hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), and hematocrit.  
Compared with never users' median value of 0.59 mcg/L, INSL3 serum levels were lower among current AAS (median, 0.04 mcg/L; P < .001) and former AAS (0.39 mcg/L; P = .005) users. A linear multivariate regression that adjusted for luteinizing hormone, SHBG, age, body-fat percentage, smoking status, use of other illicit drugs found lower levels among former users, compared with never users (mean difference, -0.16 mcg/L; P = .011). 

An analysis of elapsed duration since AAS cessation found longer duration of AAS use was associated with reduced INSL3 levels (mean difference, -0.08; P = .022). 

Although serum inhibin B levels reached the levels of never users after about 21 months, and luteinizing hormone levels recovered in about 12 months, neither serum testosterone nor INSL3 levels recovered in former users. 

The study authors received funding from Anti Doping Denmark. Dr. Jayasena has no relevant financial disclosures. 

*Dr. Rasmussen's affiliation has been corrected.

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

A 2.4-mg weekly injection of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist semaglutide led to a clinically meaningful 5% loss in weight for roughly two-thirds of patients with both overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes, researchers report.

These findings from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity 2 (STEP 2) trial, one of four phase 3 trials of this drug, which is currently under regulatory review for weight loss, were published March 2 in The Lancet.

More than 1,000 patients (mean initial weight, 100 kg [220 pounds]) were randomly assigned to receive a lifestyle intervention plus a weekly injection of semaglutide 2.4 mg or semaglutide 1.0 mg or placebo. At 68 weeks, they had lost a mean of 9.6%, 7.0%, and 3.4%, respectively, of their starting weight.

In addition, 69% of patients who had received semaglutide 2.4 mg experienced a clinically meaningful 5% loss of weight, compared with 57% of patients who had received the lower dose and 29% of patients who had received placebo.

The higher dose of semaglutide was associated with a greater improvement in cardiometabolic risk factors. The safety profile was similar to that seen with other drugs in this class.
 

“By far the best results with any weight loss medicine in diabetes”

Importantly, “more than a quarter of participants lost over 15% of their body weight,” senior author Ildiko Lingvay, MD, stressed. This “is by far the best result we had with any weight loss medicine in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Lingvay, of the University of Texas, Dallas, said in a statement from the university.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“The drug works by suppressing appetite centers in the brain to reduce caloric intake,” she explained. “The medication continually tells the body that you just ate, you’re full.”

Similarly, lead author Melanie J. Davies, MD, said that the STEP 2 results “are exciting and represent a new era in weight management in people with type 2 diabetes.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

One of four trials under review

More than 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or have obesity, and more than 20% of people with obesity have diabetes, wrote Dr. Davies and colleagues.

Semaglutide (Ozempic), administered subcutaneously at a dose of 0.5 mg to 1 mg weekly, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Dosing studies indicated that it is associated with weight loss.

As previously reported, four trials of the use of semaglutide for weight loss (STEP 1, 2, 3, and 4) have been completed. The combined data were submitted to the FDA on Dec. 4, 2020 (a decision is expected within 6 months) and to the European Medicines Agency on Dec. 18, 2020.

The STEP 1 and STEP 3 trials of semaglutide 2.4 mg vs. placebo were recently published. The STEP 1 trial involved 1,961 adults with obesity or overweight; the STEP 3 trial, 611 adults with obesity or overweight. In each of the trials, some patients also underwent an intensive lifestyle intervention, and some did not. In both trials, patients with type 2 diabetes were excluded.

Topline results from STEP 2 were reported in June 2020.
 

STEP 2 enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes

STEP 2 involved 1,210 adults in 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. All participants had type 2 diabetes.

For all patients, the body mass index was ≥27 kg/m², and the A1c concentration was 7%-10%. The mean BMI was 35.7 kg/m², and the mean A1c was 8.1%.

The mean age of the patients was 55 years, and 51% were women; 62% were White, 26% were Asian, 13% were Hispanic, 8% were Black, and 4% were of other ethnicity.

Participants were managed with diet and exercise alone or underwent treatment with a stable dose of up to three oral glucose-lowering agents (metformin, sulfonylureas, SGLT2 inhibitors, or thiazolidinediones) for at least 90 days. They were then randomly assigned in 1:1:1 ratio to receive semaglutide 2.4 mg, semaglutide 1.0 mg, or placebo.

The starting dose of semaglutide was 0.25 mg/wk; the dose was escalated every 4 weeks to reach the target dose.

All patients received monthly counseling from a dietitian about calories (the goal was a 500-calorie/day deficit) and activity (the goal was 150 minutes of walking or stair climbing per week).

The mean A1c dropped by 1.6% and 1.5% in the semaglutide groups and by 0.4% in the placebo group.

Adverse events were more frequent among the patients who received semaglutide (88% and 82%) than in the placebo group (77%).

Gastrointestinal events that were mainly mild to moderate in severity were reported by 64% of patients in the 2.4-mg semaglutide group, 58% in the 1.0-mg semaglutide group, and 34% in the placebo group.

Semaglutide (Rybelsus) is approved in the United States as a once-daily oral agent for use in type 2 diabetes in doses of 7 mg and 14 mg to improve glycemic control along with diet and exercise. It is the first GLP-1 agonist available in tablet form.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. The authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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