Clinician Reviews

Athletes with mild hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at low risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) can safely continue to exercise at competitive levels, a retrospective study suggests.

During a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, athletes who continued to engage in high-intensity competitive sports after a mild HCM diagnosis were free of cardiac symptoms, and there were no deaths, incidents of sustained ventricular tachycardia or syncope, or changes in cardiac electrical, structural, or functional phenotypes.

Pavel1964/iStock/Getty Images

“This study supports emerging evidence that HCM individuals with a low-risk profile and mild hypertrophy may engage in vigorous exercise and competitive sport,” Sanjay Sharma, MD, of St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. Current guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology support a more liberal approach to exercise for these individuals.

That said, he added, “it is important to emphasize that our cohort consisted of a group of adult competitive athletes who had probably been competing for several years before the diagnosis was made and therefore represented a self-selected, low-risk cohort. It is difficult to extrapolate this data to adolescent athletes, who appear to be more vulnerable to exercise-related SCD from HCM.”

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

Vigorous exercise OK for some

Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed data from 53 athletes with HCM who continued to participate in competitive sports. The mean age was 39 years, 98% were men, and 72% were White. About half (53%) competed as professionals, and were most commonly engaged in cycling, football, running, and rugby.

Participants underwent 6-12 monthly assessments that included electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, Holter monitoring (≥ 24 hours), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A majority (64.2%) were evaluated because of an abnormal electrocardiograms, and one presented with an incidental abnormal echocardiogram.

About a quarter (24.5%) were symptomatic and 5 (9.4%) were identified on family screening. Eight (15%) had a family history of HCM, and six (11.3%) of SCD.

At the baseline evaluation, all athletes had a “low” ESC 5-year SCD risk score for HCM (1.9% ± 0.9%). None had syncope. Mean peak VO₂ was 40.7 ± 6.8 mL/kg per minute.

The mean left ventricular wall thickness was 14.6 ± 2.3 mm; all had normal LV systolic and diastolic function and no LV outflow tract obstruction at rest or on provocation testing. In addition, none had an LV apical aneurysm.

Twenty-two (41%) showed late gadolinium enhancement on baseline cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

A total of 19 participants underwent genotyping; 4 (21.1%) had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic sarcomeric variant. None took cardiovascular medication or had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

During a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, all participants continued to exercise at the same level as before their diagnosis; none underwent detraining. All stayed free of cardiac symptoms, and there were no deaths, sustained ventricular tachycardia episodes, or syncope.

Four demonstrated new, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) during follow-up, one of whom underwent ICD implantation because of an increased risk score and subsequently moderated exercise levels.

One participant had a 30-second atrial fibrillation (AFib) episode lasting longer than 30 seconds, started on a beta-blocker and oral anticoagulation, and also moderated exercise levels.

The event rate was 2.1% per year for asymptomatic arrhythmias (NSVT and AFib). No changes were observed in the cardiac electrical, structural, or functional phenotype during follow-up.

Dr. Sharma and colleagues stated: “Our sample size is small; however, it is nearly double the size of a previously studied Italian athletic cohort, and one-half were professional athletes. Furthermore, 17% of our cohort comprised Black athletes who are perceived to be at higher risk of SCD than White athletes.”

Daniele Massera, MD, assistant professor in the HCM program, department of medicine, Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University Langone Health, said in an interview: “Of note, these were athletes/patients at the very low end of phenotypic severity of HCM. ... It is also notable that diastolic function was normal in all of them, an uncommon finding in patients with HCM.”

Like Dr. Sharma, he said the findings are in line with recent guidelines, and cautioned: “This small study applies only to a very small subset of patients who are being evaluated at specialized HCM programs: asymptomatic male individuals who have mild, low-risk HCM and are on no medicines.

“The findings cannot be generalized to the population of symptomatic individuals with (or without) outflow obstruction, more severe hypertrophy, and who have ICDs and/or take medication for symptoms, nor to younger patients or adolescents, who may be at higher risk for adverse outcomes,” he concluded.
 

Individualized approach urged

Dr. Sharma was a coauthor of the recent article challenging the traditional restrictive approach to exercise for athletes diagnosed with HCM and other inherited cardiovascular diseases. The article suggested that individualized recommendations, taking risks into consideration, can help guide those who want to exercise or participate in competitive sports.

Dr. Sharma also is a coauthor of a 6-month follow-up to the SAFE-HCM study, which compared the effects of a supervised 12-week high-intensity exercise program to usual care in low-risk individuals with HCM (mean age, 45.7). 

In the 6-month follow-up study, published as an abstract in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2021 supplement, “exercising individuals had improved functional capacity and atherosclerotic risk profile and there were no differences in the composite safety outcomes [cardiovascular death, cardiac arrest, device therapy, exercise-induced syncope, sustained VT, NSVT, or sustained atrial arrhythmias] between exercising individuals and usual care individuals,” Dr. Sharma said.

The full study will soon be ready to submit for publication, he added.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Athletes with mild hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at low risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) can safely continue to exercise at competitive levels, a retrospective study suggests.

During a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, athletes who continued to engage in high-intensity competitive sports after a mild HCM diagnosis were free of cardiac symptoms, and there were no deaths, incidents of sustained ventricular tachycardia or syncope, or changes in cardiac electrical, structural, or functional phenotypes.

Pavel1964/iStock/Getty Images

“This study supports emerging evidence that HCM individuals with a low-risk profile and mild hypertrophy may engage in vigorous exercise and competitive sport,” Sanjay Sharma, MD, of St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. Current guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology support a more liberal approach to exercise for these individuals.

That said, he added, “it is important to emphasize that our cohort consisted of a group of adult competitive athletes who had probably been competing for several years before the diagnosis was made and therefore represented a self-selected, low-risk cohort. It is difficult to extrapolate this data to adolescent athletes, who appear to be more vulnerable to exercise-related SCD from HCM.”

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

Vigorous exercise OK for some

Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed data from 53 athletes with HCM who continued to participate in competitive sports. The mean age was 39 years, 98% were men, and 72% were White. About half (53%) competed as professionals, and were most commonly engaged in cycling, football, running, and rugby.

Participants underwent 6-12 monthly assessments that included electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, Holter monitoring (≥ 24 hours), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A majority (64.2%) were evaluated because of an abnormal electrocardiograms, and one presented with an incidental abnormal echocardiogram.

About a quarter (24.5%) were symptomatic and 5 (9.4%) were identified on family screening. Eight (15%) had a family history of HCM, and six (11.3%) of SCD.

At the baseline evaluation, all athletes had a “low” ESC 5-year SCD risk score for HCM (1.9% ± 0.9%). None had syncope. Mean peak VO₂ was 40.7 ± 6.8 mL/kg per minute.

The mean left ventricular wall thickness was 14.6 ± 2.3 mm; all had normal LV systolic and diastolic function and no LV outflow tract obstruction at rest or on provocation testing. In addition, none had an LV apical aneurysm.

Twenty-two (41%) showed late gadolinium enhancement on baseline cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

A total of 19 participants underwent genotyping; 4 (21.1%) had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic sarcomeric variant. None took cardiovascular medication or had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

During a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, all participants continued to exercise at the same level as before their diagnosis; none underwent detraining. All stayed free of cardiac symptoms, and there were no deaths, sustained ventricular tachycardia episodes, or syncope.

Four demonstrated new, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) during follow-up, one of whom underwent ICD implantation because of an increased risk score and subsequently moderated exercise levels.

One participant had a 30-second atrial fibrillation (AFib) episode lasting longer than 30 seconds, started on a beta-blocker and oral anticoagulation, and also moderated exercise levels.

The event rate was 2.1% per year for asymptomatic arrhythmias (NSVT and AFib). No changes were observed in the cardiac electrical, structural, or functional phenotype during follow-up.

Dr. Sharma and colleagues stated: “Our sample size is small; however, it is nearly double the size of a previously studied Italian athletic cohort, and one-half were professional athletes. Furthermore, 17% of our cohort comprised Black athletes who are perceived to be at higher risk of SCD than White athletes.”

Daniele Massera, MD, assistant professor in the HCM program, department of medicine, Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University Langone Health, said in an interview: “Of note, these were athletes/patients at the very low end of phenotypic severity of HCM. ... It is also notable that diastolic function was normal in all of them, an uncommon finding in patients with HCM.”

Like Dr. Sharma, he said the findings are in line with recent guidelines, and cautioned: “This small study applies only to a very small subset of patients who are being evaluated at specialized HCM programs: asymptomatic male individuals who have mild, low-risk HCM and are on no medicines.

“The findings cannot be generalized to the population of symptomatic individuals with (or without) outflow obstruction, more severe hypertrophy, and who have ICDs and/or take medication for symptoms, nor to younger patients or adolescents, who may be at higher risk for adverse outcomes,” he concluded.
 

Individualized approach urged

Dr. Sharma was a coauthor of the recent article challenging the traditional restrictive approach to exercise for athletes diagnosed with HCM and other inherited cardiovascular diseases. The article suggested that individualized recommendations, taking risks into consideration, can help guide those who want to exercise or participate in competitive sports.

Dr. Sharma also is a coauthor of a 6-month follow-up to the SAFE-HCM study, which compared the effects of a supervised 12-week high-intensity exercise program to usual care in low-risk individuals with HCM (mean age, 45.7). 

In the 6-month follow-up study, published as an abstract in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2021 supplement, “exercising individuals had improved functional capacity and atherosclerotic risk profile and there were no differences in the composite safety outcomes [cardiovascular death, cardiac arrest, device therapy, exercise-induced syncope, sustained VT, NSVT, or sustained atrial arrhythmias] between exercising individuals and usual care individuals,” Dr. Sharma said.

The full study will soon be ready to submit for publication, he added.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Athletes with mild hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) at low risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) can safely continue to exercise at competitive levels, a retrospective study suggests.

During a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, athletes who continued to engage in high-intensity competitive sports after a mild HCM diagnosis were free of cardiac symptoms, and there were no deaths, incidents of sustained ventricular tachycardia or syncope, or changes in cardiac electrical, structural, or functional phenotypes.

Pavel1964/iStock/Getty Images

“This study supports emerging evidence that HCM individuals with a low-risk profile and mild hypertrophy may engage in vigorous exercise and competitive sport,” Sanjay Sharma, MD, of St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. Current guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology support a more liberal approach to exercise for these individuals.

That said, he added, “it is important to emphasize that our cohort consisted of a group of adult competitive athletes who had probably been competing for several years before the diagnosis was made and therefore represented a self-selected, low-risk cohort. It is difficult to extrapolate this data to adolescent athletes, who appear to be more vulnerable to exercise-related SCD from HCM.”

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

Vigorous exercise OK for some

Dr. Sharma and colleagues analyzed data from 53 athletes with HCM who continued to participate in competitive sports. The mean age was 39 years, 98% were men, and 72% were White. About half (53%) competed as professionals, and were most commonly engaged in cycling, football, running, and rugby.

Participants underwent 6-12 monthly assessments that included electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, Holter monitoring (≥ 24 hours), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A majority (64.2%) were evaluated because of an abnormal electrocardiograms, and one presented with an incidental abnormal echocardiogram.

About a quarter (24.5%) were symptomatic and 5 (9.4%) were identified on family screening. Eight (15%) had a family history of HCM, and six (11.3%) of SCD.

At the baseline evaluation, all athletes had a “low” ESC 5-year SCD risk score for HCM (1.9% ± 0.9%). None had syncope. Mean peak VO₂ was 40.7 ± 6.8 mL/kg per minute.

The mean left ventricular wall thickness was 14.6 ± 2.3 mm; all had normal LV systolic and diastolic function and no LV outflow tract obstruction at rest or on provocation testing. In addition, none had an LV apical aneurysm.

Twenty-two (41%) showed late gadolinium enhancement on baseline cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

A total of 19 participants underwent genotyping; 4 (21.1%) had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic sarcomeric variant. None took cardiovascular medication or had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

During a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, all participants continued to exercise at the same level as before their diagnosis; none underwent detraining. All stayed free of cardiac symptoms, and there were no deaths, sustained ventricular tachycardia episodes, or syncope.

Four demonstrated new, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) during follow-up, one of whom underwent ICD implantation because of an increased risk score and subsequently moderated exercise levels.

One participant had a 30-second atrial fibrillation (AFib) episode lasting longer than 30 seconds, started on a beta-blocker and oral anticoagulation, and also moderated exercise levels.

The event rate was 2.1% per year for asymptomatic arrhythmias (NSVT and AFib). No changes were observed in the cardiac electrical, structural, or functional phenotype during follow-up.

Dr. Sharma and colleagues stated: “Our sample size is small; however, it is nearly double the size of a previously studied Italian athletic cohort, and one-half were professional athletes. Furthermore, 17% of our cohort comprised Black athletes who are perceived to be at higher risk of SCD than White athletes.”

Daniele Massera, MD, assistant professor in the HCM program, department of medicine, Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University Langone Health, said in an interview: “Of note, these were athletes/patients at the very low end of phenotypic severity of HCM. ... It is also notable that diastolic function was normal in all of them, an uncommon finding in patients with HCM.”

Like Dr. Sharma, he said the findings are in line with recent guidelines, and cautioned: “This small study applies only to a very small subset of patients who are being evaluated at specialized HCM programs: asymptomatic male individuals who have mild, low-risk HCM and are on no medicines.

“The findings cannot be generalized to the population of symptomatic individuals with (or without) outflow obstruction, more severe hypertrophy, and who have ICDs and/or take medication for symptoms, nor to younger patients or adolescents, who may be at higher risk for adverse outcomes,” he concluded.
 

Individualized approach urged

Dr. Sharma was a coauthor of the recent article challenging the traditional restrictive approach to exercise for athletes diagnosed with HCM and other inherited cardiovascular diseases. The article suggested that individualized recommendations, taking risks into consideration, can help guide those who want to exercise or participate in competitive sports.

Dr. Sharma also is a coauthor of a 6-month follow-up to the SAFE-HCM study, which compared the effects of a supervised 12-week high-intensity exercise program to usual care in low-risk individuals with HCM (mean age, 45.7). 

In the 6-month follow-up study, published as an abstract in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 2021 supplement, “exercising individuals had improved functional capacity and atherosclerotic risk profile and there were no differences in the composite safety outcomes [cardiovascular death, cardiac arrest, device therapy, exercise-induced syncope, sustained VT, NSVT, or sustained atrial arrhythmias] between exercising individuals and usual care individuals,” Dr. Sharma said.

The full study will soon be ready to submit for publication, he added.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about the recent research (particularly randomized clinical trials) of vitamin D supplementation and the implications for clinical practice. As a director of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 trial (VITAL), the largest randomized clinical trial in the world, I’m often asked, “How much vitamin D do we need, and should I take a vitamin D supplement?” I want to review the findings from recent randomized clinical trials and the implications for practice.

For a long time, vitamin D has been perceived as a magic bullet, a panacea, and a cure-all for many chronic health conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive decline, and depression. Many of the findings, though, have been from observational studies where a higher blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D has been linked to a lower risk for these health conditions.

We know in epidemiology that correlation doesn’t prove causation. Other factors could be involved; for example, people who have higher blood levels of vitamin D may have healthier diets, or they may be spending more time outdoors, being physically active and exposed to the sun. Some of these other factors could be lowering their risk.

When the randomized trials began to emerge, in many of these large-scale trials, the findings were generally neutral or null for cardiovascular disease, total cancer, diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, and many other health outcomes, including fracture. So, the question was asked, does this mean that vitamin D is not important to health?

To the contrary, these findings suggest that vitamin D is so essential to health that we need only small to moderate amounts of vitamin D. Vitamin D is very tightly regulated in the body – the metabolism and function of vitamin D. Even small to moderate amounts will meet the requirements for vitamin D and bone health and many other outcomes.

This is what the National Academy of Medicine, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and many other professional organizations have advised, that widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency and blanket universal supplementation with vitamin D would not be indicated.

The randomized trials of vitamin D, including the VITAL study, have generally not shown reductions in the major health outcomes. We found two exceptions in VITAL. We saw promising signals, including a 22% reduction in autoimmune conditions (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis) and a 17% reduction in advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancers. In meta-analyses of other large-scale randomized trials, the findings were a signal for a reduction in advanced cancers, even with very small doses of vitamin D (400-800 IUs daily). We tested 2,000 IUs daily in VITAL.

Overall, it’s recommended that small to moderate amounts of vitamin D are adequate, and among the healthy population, most people do not need screening or supplements.

The reduction in autoimmune diseases suggests that vitamin D may play a role in tamping down inflammation. The question has been raised about whether vitamin D is beneficial in reducing the severity of COVID illness, the need for hospitalization, and long COVID. We are looking at this question in a separate trial called VIVID (Vitamin D for COVID Trial) which tests a higher dose (> 3,000 IUs daily) of vitamin D. Those results will be available at the end of this year or early next year.

In other randomized trials of COVID and vitamin D, the results have been mixed and inconsistent, with no clear answer. During the COVID pandemic, I have generally advised that it’s reasonable to take 1,000-2,000 IUs of vitamin D daily as a form of insurance. This dose is known to be very safe. Over 5.3 years in the VITAL trial we saw that a dose of 2,000 IUs was very safe.

But it’s not essential to take a supplement. And overall, aside from some high-risk groups, most people do not need a supplement. The high-risk groups include patients in nursing homes who may have restricted diets and limited time out of doors. For people with malabsorption conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, post–gastric bypass surgery, and those with osteoporosis who are on medications for osteoporosis, it’s still quite reasonable to prescribe calcium and vitamin D.

Recommendations for vitamin D in the generally healthy population really should focus on a healthy diet. The United States has a fortified food supply. Vitamin D is added to many foods, dairy products, and cereals, as well as beverages. Natural sources of vitamin D include fatty fish and wild mushrooms.

We should be looking at food labels (which now include vitamin D content) and try to get adequate vitamin D from our diet, and also do our best to spend time outdoors, being physically active, because it is of great benefit to our health. The general principle is that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a healthy diet or healthy lifestyle. And those other behaviors really should be the focus at this time.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She has received infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about the recent research (particularly randomized clinical trials) of vitamin D supplementation and the implications for clinical practice. As a director of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 trial (VITAL), the largest randomized clinical trial in the world, I’m often asked, “How much vitamin D do we need, and should I take a vitamin D supplement?” I want to review the findings from recent randomized clinical trials and the implications for practice.

For a long time, vitamin D has been perceived as a magic bullet, a panacea, and a cure-all for many chronic health conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive decline, and depression. Many of the findings, though, have been from observational studies where a higher blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D has been linked to a lower risk for these health conditions.

We know in epidemiology that correlation doesn’t prove causation. Other factors could be involved; for example, people who have higher blood levels of vitamin D may have healthier diets, or they may be spending more time outdoors, being physically active and exposed to the sun. Some of these other factors could be lowering their risk.

When the randomized trials began to emerge, in many of these large-scale trials, the findings were generally neutral or null for cardiovascular disease, total cancer, diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, and many other health outcomes, including fracture. So, the question was asked, does this mean that vitamin D is not important to health?

To the contrary, these findings suggest that vitamin D is so essential to health that we need only small to moderate amounts of vitamin D. Vitamin D is very tightly regulated in the body – the metabolism and function of vitamin D. Even small to moderate amounts will meet the requirements for vitamin D and bone health and many other outcomes.

This is what the National Academy of Medicine, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and many other professional organizations have advised, that widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency and blanket universal supplementation with vitamin D would not be indicated.

The randomized trials of vitamin D, including the VITAL study, have generally not shown reductions in the major health outcomes. We found two exceptions in VITAL. We saw promising signals, including a 22% reduction in autoimmune conditions (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis) and a 17% reduction in advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancers. In meta-analyses of other large-scale randomized trials, the findings were a signal for a reduction in advanced cancers, even with very small doses of vitamin D (400-800 IUs daily). We tested 2,000 IUs daily in VITAL.

Overall, it’s recommended that small to moderate amounts of vitamin D are adequate, and among the healthy population, most people do not need screening or supplements.

The reduction in autoimmune diseases suggests that vitamin D may play a role in tamping down inflammation. The question has been raised about whether vitamin D is beneficial in reducing the severity of COVID illness, the need for hospitalization, and long COVID. We are looking at this question in a separate trial called VIVID (Vitamin D for COVID Trial) which tests a higher dose (> 3,000 IUs daily) of vitamin D. Those results will be available at the end of this year or early next year.

In other randomized trials of COVID and vitamin D, the results have been mixed and inconsistent, with no clear answer. During the COVID pandemic, I have generally advised that it’s reasonable to take 1,000-2,000 IUs of vitamin D daily as a form of insurance. This dose is known to be very safe. Over 5.3 years in the VITAL trial we saw that a dose of 2,000 IUs was very safe.

But it’s not essential to take a supplement. And overall, aside from some high-risk groups, most people do not need a supplement. The high-risk groups include patients in nursing homes who may have restricted diets and limited time out of doors. For people with malabsorption conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, post–gastric bypass surgery, and those with osteoporosis who are on medications for osteoporosis, it’s still quite reasonable to prescribe calcium and vitamin D.

Recommendations for vitamin D in the generally healthy population really should focus on a healthy diet. The United States has a fortified food supply. Vitamin D is added to many foods, dairy products, and cereals, as well as beverages. Natural sources of vitamin D include fatty fish and wild mushrooms.

We should be looking at food labels (which now include vitamin D content) and try to get adequate vitamin D from our diet, and also do our best to spend time outdoors, being physically active, because it is of great benefit to our health. The general principle is that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a healthy diet or healthy lifestyle. And those other behaviors really should be the focus at this time.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She has received infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about the recent research (particularly randomized clinical trials) of vitamin D supplementation and the implications for clinical practice. As a director of the Vitamin D and Omega-3 trial (VITAL), the largest randomized clinical trial in the world, I’m often asked, “How much vitamin D do we need, and should I take a vitamin D supplement?” I want to review the findings from recent randomized clinical trials and the implications for practice.

For a long time, vitamin D has been perceived as a magic bullet, a panacea, and a cure-all for many chronic health conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive decline, and depression. Many of the findings, though, have been from observational studies where a higher blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D has been linked to a lower risk for these health conditions.

We know in epidemiology that correlation doesn’t prove causation. Other factors could be involved; for example, people who have higher blood levels of vitamin D may have healthier diets, or they may be spending more time outdoors, being physically active and exposed to the sun. Some of these other factors could be lowering their risk.

When the randomized trials began to emerge, in many of these large-scale trials, the findings were generally neutral or null for cardiovascular disease, total cancer, diabetes, cognitive decline, depression, and many other health outcomes, including fracture. So, the question was asked, does this mean that vitamin D is not important to health?

To the contrary, these findings suggest that vitamin D is so essential to health that we need only small to moderate amounts of vitamin D. Vitamin D is very tightly regulated in the body – the metabolism and function of vitamin D. Even small to moderate amounts will meet the requirements for vitamin D and bone health and many other outcomes.

This is what the National Academy of Medicine, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and many other professional organizations have advised, that widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency and blanket universal supplementation with vitamin D would not be indicated.

The randomized trials of vitamin D, including the VITAL study, have generally not shown reductions in the major health outcomes. We found two exceptions in VITAL. We saw promising signals, including a 22% reduction in autoimmune conditions (rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis) and a 17% reduction in advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancers. In meta-analyses of other large-scale randomized trials, the findings were a signal for a reduction in advanced cancers, even with very small doses of vitamin D (400-800 IUs daily). We tested 2,000 IUs daily in VITAL.

Overall, it’s recommended that small to moderate amounts of vitamin D are adequate, and among the healthy population, most people do not need screening or supplements.

The reduction in autoimmune diseases suggests that vitamin D may play a role in tamping down inflammation. The question has been raised about whether vitamin D is beneficial in reducing the severity of COVID illness, the need for hospitalization, and long COVID. We are looking at this question in a separate trial called VIVID (Vitamin D for COVID Trial) which tests a higher dose (> 3,000 IUs daily) of vitamin D. Those results will be available at the end of this year or early next year.

In other randomized trials of COVID and vitamin D, the results have been mixed and inconsistent, with no clear answer. During the COVID pandemic, I have generally advised that it’s reasonable to take 1,000-2,000 IUs of vitamin D daily as a form of insurance. This dose is known to be very safe. Over 5.3 years in the VITAL trial we saw that a dose of 2,000 IUs was very safe.

But it’s not essential to take a supplement. And overall, aside from some high-risk groups, most people do not need a supplement. The high-risk groups include patients in nursing homes who may have restricted diets and limited time out of doors. For people with malabsorption conditions such as Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, post–gastric bypass surgery, and those with osteoporosis who are on medications for osteoporosis, it’s still quite reasonable to prescribe calcium and vitamin D.

Recommendations for vitamin D in the generally healthy population really should focus on a healthy diet. The United States has a fortified food supply. Vitamin D is added to many foods, dairy products, and cereals, as well as beverages. Natural sources of vitamin D include fatty fish and wild mushrooms.

We should be looking at food labels (which now include vitamin D content) and try to get adequate vitamin D from our diet, and also do our best to spend time outdoors, being physically active, because it is of great benefit to our health. The general principle is that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a healthy diet or healthy lifestyle. And those other behaviors really should be the focus at this time.

Dr. Manson is professor of medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and chief of the division of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. She has received infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience for the COSMOS trial.

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

Women with repeated attempts at weight loss, even if the weight is regained, have modestly greater weight loss at an obesity management clinic than women without such a history, data suggest.

In a retrospective study of data for more than 11,000 participants in a weight-management program, the frequency of weight loss was significantly correlated with the total lifetime weight loss in men (r = 0.61, P < .0001) and women (r = 0.60, P < .0001).

“It should be harder for you to lose weight when you’re older, as opposed to younger. That’s just biology,” study author Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic, Burlington, Ont., told this news organization. But older people “have practiced a whole lot more than younger people. That’s probably one of the big things” in their favor, he added.

Dr. Wharton also is a clinical adjunct professor at York University, Toronto, and the lead author of 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on obesity.

The current data were published in Obesity.
 

Practice makes perfect?

The prevalence of obesity is increasing. It is uncertain whether frequent weight losses help or hinder future weight-loss attempts. The effect of age at overweight on future weight loss attempts is also unclear.

To examine these questions, the current researchers analyzed the experiences of patients with obesity treated at the Wharton Medical Clinic Weight Management Program, Hamilton, Ont. At enrollment, participants responded to a questionnaire that elicited information about basic demographics, past weight loss and health practices, medical history, and family medical history. Patients did not receive any stipend for their participation and consented to the use of their medical data for research purposes. The investigators assessed weight change through a retrospective review of electronic medical records.

The study examined a data set that included 36,124 patients who were predominantly White, middle-aged women. “Although this is reflective of the demographic that is most commonly seeking obesity management in North America, the applicability of these findings to other groups is unclear,” wrote the investigators.

As a group, women under age 40 lost 1.7 kg, while those from ages 40 to 60 lost 3.2 kg, and women older than 60 lost 4.2 kg. Weight loss among men was greater and followed a similar pattern. Men under age 40 lost 3.0 kg, those between ages 40 and 60 lost 4.2 kg, and those older than 60 lost 5.2 kg.

To examine how long participants had been trying to lose weight, the investigators analyzed their age of overweight onset. Most participants reported having become overweight before age 40 and having lost at least 4.5 kg at least once in their lifetime. Older women with a longer history of losing weight had better results during the study.

In middle-aged and older women, but not men or younger women, earlier age of overweight onset and lifetime weight loss were associated with modestly greater weight loss at the clinic. When the researchers assessed women age 60 and older, they found that those who had an age of overweight onset before age 10 lost 4.9 kg on average, while those whose age of overweight onset was between ages 20 and 39 lost 4.3 kg. Women with an age of overweight onset above 40 had a weight loss of 3.5 kg.

The finding of greater weight loss in older women who were experienced in dieting was surprising, said Dr. Wharton. It may reflect the effects of perseverance and lifestyle changes. “The other thing is that [older women] also have more time. They have more availability. They make more appointments. They have the ability to be more focused,” said Dr. Wharton.

The Wharton Medical Clinic operates within the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and all services are provided at no charge to the patient, which may reduce the selection bias against patients with low socioeconomic status, wrote the investigators.
 

Inclusive population

Lesley D. Lutes, PhD, director of the Center for Obesity and Well-Being Research Excellence (CORE) at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said that one of its strengths was its reflection of real-world experience.

Too often, study populations do not reflect well the experiences of people battling obesity, she added. Many potential participants are excluded because of common medical comorbidities such as heart conditions. “So, you don’t see the real-world outcomes for the majority of people” from these studies, said Dr. Lutes.

Furthermore, researchers sometimes draw conclusions about obesity based on data that draws from only a “tiny slice” of the group of patients who can qualify for studies, she added. The resulting recommendations may not suit most patients.

In contrast, the current research was based on a more inclusive set of patient data. “That was an incredible strength of this study, that there [were] no exclusionary criteria” in terms of medical conditions, she said.

No outside funding for the study was reported. Dr. Wharton is the medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic.

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

Women with repeated attempts at weight loss, even if the weight is regained, have modestly greater weight loss at an obesity management clinic than women without such a history, data suggest.

In a retrospective study of data for more than 11,000 participants in a weight-management program, the frequency of weight loss was significantly correlated with the total lifetime weight loss in men (r = 0.61, P < .0001) and women (r = 0.60, P < .0001).

“It should be harder for you to lose weight when you’re older, as opposed to younger. That’s just biology,” study author Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic, Burlington, Ont., told this news organization. But older people “have practiced a whole lot more than younger people. That’s probably one of the big things” in their favor, he added.

Dr. Wharton also is a clinical adjunct professor at York University, Toronto, and the lead author of 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on obesity.

The current data were published in Obesity.
 

Practice makes perfect?

The prevalence of obesity is increasing. It is uncertain whether frequent weight losses help or hinder future weight-loss attempts. The effect of age at overweight on future weight loss attempts is also unclear.

To examine these questions, the current researchers analyzed the experiences of patients with obesity treated at the Wharton Medical Clinic Weight Management Program, Hamilton, Ont. At enrollment, participants responded to a questionnaire that elicited information about basic demographics, past weight loss and health practices, medical history, and family medical history. Patients did not receive any stipend for their participation and consented to the use of their medical data for research purposes. The investigators assessed weight change through a retrospective review of electronic medical records.

The study examined a data set that included 36,124 patients who were predominantly White, middle-aged women. “Although this is reflective of the demographic that is most commonly seeking obesity management in North America, the applicability of these findings to other groups is unclear,” wrote the investigators.

As a group, women under age 40 lost 1.7 kg, while those from ages 40 to 60 lost 3.2 kg, and women older than 60 lost 4.2 kg. Weight loss among men was greater and followed a similar pattern. Men under age 40 lost 3.0 kg, those between ages 40 and 60 lost 4.2 kg, and those older than 60 lost 5.2 kg.

To examine how long participants had been trying to lose weight, the investigators analyzed their age of overweight onset. Most participants reported having become overweight before age 40 and having lost at least 4.5 kg at least once in their lifetime. Older women with a longer history of losing weight had better results during the study.

In middle-aged and older women, but not men or younger women, earlier age of overweight onset and lifetime weight loss were associated with modestly greater weight loss at the clinic. When the researchers assessed women age 60 and older, they found that those who had an age of overweight onset before age 10 lost 4.9 kg on average, while those whose age of overweight onset was between ages 20 and 39 lost 4.3 kg. Women with an age of overweight onset above 40 had a weight loss of 3.5 kg.

The finding of greater weight loss in older women who were experienced in dieting was surprising, said Dr. Wharton. It may reflect the effects of perseverance and lifestyle changes. “The other thing is that [older women] also have more time. They have more availability. They make more appointments. They have the ability to be more focused,” said Dr. Wharton.

The Wharton Medical Clinic operates within the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and all services are provided at no charge to the patient, which may reduce the selection bias against patients with low socioeconomic status, wrote the investigators.
 

Inclusive population

Lesley D. Lutes, PhD, director of the Center for Obesity and Well-Being Research Excellence (CORE) at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said that one of its strengths was its reflection of real-world experience.

Too often, study populations do not reflect well the experiences of people battling obesity, she added. Many potential participants are excluded because of common medical comorbidities such as heart conditions. “So, you don’t see the real-world outcomes for the majority of people” from these studies, said Dr. Lutes.

Furthermore, researchers sometimes draw conclusions about obesity based on data that draws from only a “tiny slice” of the group of patients who can qualify for studies, she added. The resulting recommendations may not suit most patients.

In contrast, the current research was based on a more inclusive set of patient data. “That was an incredible strength of this study, that there [were] no exclusionary criteria” in terms of medical conditions, she said.

No outside funding for the study was reported. Dr. Wharton is the medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic.

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

Women with repeated attempts at weight loss, even if the weight is regained, have modestly greater weight loss at an obesity management clinic than women without such a history, data suggest.

In a retrospective study of data for more than 11,000 participants in a weight-management program, the frequency of weight loss was significantly correlated with the total lifetime weight loss in men (r = 0.61, P < .0001) and women (r = 0.60, P < .0001).

“It should be harder for you to lose weight when you’re older, as opposed to younger. That’s just biology,” study author Sean Wharton, MD, PharmD, medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic, Burlington, Ont., told this news organization. But older people “have practiced a whole lot more than younger people. That’s probably one of the big things” in their favor, he added.

Dr. Wharton also is a clinical adjunct professor at York University, Toronto, and the lead author of 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on obesity.

The current data were published in Obesity.
 

Practice makes perfect?

The prevalence of obesity is increasing. It is uncertain whether frequent weight losses help or hinder future weight-loss attempts. The effect of age at overweight on future weight loss attempts is also unclear.

To examine these questions, the current researchers analyzed the experiences of patients with obesity treated at the Wharton Medical Clinic Weight Management Program, Hamilton, Ont. At enrollment, participants responded to a questionnaire that elicited information about basic demographics, past weight loss and health practices, medical history, and family medical history. Patients did not receive any stipend for their participation and consented to the use of their medical data for research purposes. The investigators assessed weight change through a retrospective review of electronic medical records.

The study examined a data set that included 36,124 patients who were predominantly White, middle-aged women. “Although this is reflective of the demographic that is most commonly seeking obesity management in North America, the applicability of these findings to other groups is unclear,” wrote the investigators.

As a group, women under age 40 lost 1.7 kg, while those from ages 40 to 60 lost 3.2 kg, and women older than 60 lost 4.2 kg. Weight loss among men was greater and followed a similar pattern. Men under age 40 lost 3.0 kg, those between ages 40 and 60 lost 4.2 kg, and those older than 60 lost 5.2 kg.

To examine how long participants had been trying to lose weight, the investigators analyzed their age of overweight onset. Most participants reported having become overweight before age 40 and having lost at least 4.5 kg at least once in their lifetime. Older women with a longer history of losing weight had better results during the study.

In middle-aged and older women, but not men or younger women, earlier age of overweight onset and lifetime weight loss were associated with modestly greater weight loss at the clinic. When the researchers assessed women age 60 and older, they found that those who had an age of overweight onset before age 10 lost 4.9 kg on average, while those whose age of overweight onset was between ages 20 and 39 lost 4.3 kg. Women with an age of overweight onset above 40 had a weight loss of 3.5 kg.

The finding of greater weight loss in older women who were experienced in dieting was surprising, said Dr. Wharton. It may reflect the effects of perseverance and lifestyle changes. “The other thing is that [older women] also have more time. They have more availability. They make more appointments. They have the ability to be more focused,” said Dr. Wharton.

The Wharton Medical Clinic operates within the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and all services are provided at no charge to the patient, which may reduce the selection bias against patients with low socioeconomic status, wrote the investigators.
 

Inclusive population

Lesley D. Lutes, PhD, director of the Center for Obesity and Well-Being Research Excellence (CORE) at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said that one of its strengths was its reflection of real-world experience.

Too often, study populations do not reflect well the experiences of people battling obesity, she added. Many potential participants are excluded because of common medical comorbidities such as heart conditions. “So, you don’t see the real-world outcomes for the majority of people” from these studies, said Dr. Lutes.

Furthermore, researchers sometimes draw conclusions about obesity based on data that draws from only a “tiny slice” of the group of patients who can qualify for studies, she added. The resulting recommendations may not suit most patients.

In contrast, the current research was based on a more inclusive set of patient data. “That was an incredible strength of this study, that there [were] no exclusionary criteria” in terms of medical conditions, she said.

No outside funding for the study was reported. Dr. Wharton is the medical director of the Wharton Medical Clinic.

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

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

Individuals who experience out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with nonshockable presentations have a better chance of survival when first responders use a novel CPR approach that includes gradual head-up positioning combined with basic but effective circulation-enhancing adjuncts, as shown from data from more than 2,000 patients.

In a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, Paul Pepe, MD, medical director for Dallas County Emergency Medical Services, reviewed data from five EMS systems that had adopted the new approach. Data were collected prospectively over the past 2 years from a national registry of patients who had received what Dr. Pepe called a “neuroprotective CPR bundle” (NP-CPR).

The study compared 380 NP-CPR case patients to 1,852 control patients who had received conventional CPR. Control data came from high-performance EMS systems that had participated in well-monitored, published OHCA trials funded by the National Institutes of Health. The primary outcome that was used for comparison was successful survival to hospital discharge with neurologically intact status (SURV-NI).

Traditional CPR supine chest compression techniques, if performed early and properly, can be lifesaving, but they are suboptimal, Dr. Pepe said. “Current techniques create pressure waves that run up the arterial side, but they also create back-pressure on the venous side, increasing intracranial pressure (ICP), thus compromising optimal cerebral blood flow,” he told this news organization.

For that reason, a modified physiologic approach to CPR was designed. It involves an airway adjunct called an impedance threshold device (ITD) and active compression-decompression (ACD) with a device “resembling a toilet plunger,” Dr. Pepe said.

The devices draw more blood out of the brain and into the thorax in a complementary fashion. The combination of these two adjuncts had dramatically improved SURV-NI by 50% in a clinical trial, Dr. Pepe said.

The new technology uses automated gradual head-up/torso-up positioning (AHUP) after first “priming the pump” with ITD-ACD–enhanced circulation. It was found to markedly augment that effect even further. In the laboratory setting, this synergistic NP-CPR bundle has been shown to help normalize cerebral perfusion pressure, further promoting neuro-intact survival. Normalization of end-tidal CO2 is routinely observed, according to Dr. Pepe.

In contrast to patients who present with ventricular fibrillation (shockable cases), patients with nonshockable presentations always have had grim prognoses, Dr. Pepe said. Until now, lifesaving advances had not been found, despite the fact that nonshockable presentations (asystole or electrical activity with no pulse) constitute approximately 80% of OHCA cases, or about 250,000 to 300,00 cases a year in the United States, he said.

In the study, approximately 60% of both the NP-CPR patients and control patients had asystole (flatline) presentations. The NP-CPR group had a significant threefold improvement in SURV-NI, compared with patients treated with conventional CPR in the high-functioning systems (odds ratio, 3.09). In a propensity-scored analysis matching all variables known to affect outcome, the OR increased to nearly fourfold higher (OR, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-11.78), Dr. Pepe said.

The researchers also found that the time from receipt of a 911 call to initiation of AHUP was associated with progressively higher chances of survival. The median time for application was 11 minutes; when the elapsed time was less than 11 minutes, the SURV-NI was nearly 11-fold higher for NP-CPR patients than for control patients (OR, 10.59), with survival chances of 6% versus 0.5%. ORs were even higher when the time to treatment was less than 16 minutes (OR, 13.58), with survival rates of 5% versus 0.4%.

The findings not only demonstrate proof of concept in these most futile cases but also that implementation is feasible for the majority of patients, considering that the median time to the start of any CPR by a first responder was 8 minutes for both NP-CPR patients and control patients, “let alone 11 minutes for the AHUP initiation,” Dr. Pepe said. “This finally gives some hope for these nonshockable cases,” he emphasized.

“All of these devices have now been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and should be adopted by all first-in responders,” said Dr. Pepe. “But they should be implemented as a bundle and in the proper sequence and as soon as feasible.”

Training and implementation efforts continue to expand, and more lives can be saved as more firefighters and first-in response teams acquire equipment and training, which can cut the time to response, he said.

The registry will continue to monitor outcomes with NP-CPR – the term was suggested by a patient who survived through this new approach – and Dr. Pepe and colleagues expect the statistics to improve further with wider adoption and faster implementation with the fastest responders.

A recent study by Dr. Pepe’s team, published in Resuscitation, showed the effectiveness of the neuroprotective bundle in improving survival for OHCA patients overall. The current study confirmed its impact on neuro-intact survival for the subgroup of patients with nonshockable cases.

One other take-home message is that head-up CPR cannot yet be performed by lay bystanders. “Also, do not implement this unless you are going to do it right,” Dr. Pepe emphasized in an interview.

Advanced CPR Solutions provided some materials and research funding for an independent data collector. No other relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

It’s a devastating series of setbacks for long COVID patients. First, they get the debilitating symptoms of their condition. Then they are forced to give up their jobs, or severely curtail their work hours, as their symptoms linger. And next, for many, they lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. 

While not all long COVID patients are debilitated, the CDC’s ongoing survey on long COVID found a quarter of adults with long COVID report it significantly affects their day-to-day living activities.

Estimates have shown that long COVID has disrupted the lives of anywhere from 16 million to 34 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 65. 

While hard data is still limited, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that more than half of adults with long COVID who worked before getting the virus are now either out of work or working fewer hours. 

According to data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, out of the estimated 16 million working-age adults who currently have long COVID, 2 million to 4 million of them are out of work because of their symptoms. The cost of those lost wages ranges from $170 billion a year to as much as $230 billion, the Census Bureau says. And given that approximately 155 million Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance, the welfare of working-age adults may be under serious threat. 

“Millions of people are now impacted by long COVID, and oftentimes along with that comes the inability to work,” says Megan Cole Brahim, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of health law, policy, and management at Boston University and codirector of the school’s Medicaid policy lab. “And because a lot of people get their health insurance coverage through employer-sponsored coverage, no longer being able to work means you may not have access to the health insurance that you once had.”

The CDC defines long COVID as a wide array of health conditions, including malaise, fatigue, shortness of breath, mental health issues, problems with the part of the nervous system that controls body functions, and more. 

Gwen Bishop was working remotely for the human resources department at the University of Washington Medical Centers, Seattle, when she got COVID-19. When the infection passed, Ms. Bishop, 39, thought she’d start feeling well enough to get back to work – but that didn’t happen. 

“When I would log in to work and just try to read emails,” she says, “it was like they were written in Greek. It made no sense and was incredibly stressful.”

This falls in line with what researchers have found out about the nervous system issues reported by people with long COVID. People who have survived acute COVID infections have reported lasting sensory and motor function problems, brain fog, and memory problems. 

Ms. Bishop, who was diagnosed with ADHD when she was in grade school, says another complication she got from her long COVID was a new intolerance to stimulants like coffee and her ADHD medication, Vyvanse, which were normal parts of her everyday life. 

“Every time I would take my ADHD medicine or have a cup of coffee, I would have a panic attack until it wore off,” says Ms. Bishop. “Vyvanse is a very long-acting stimulant, so that would be an entire day of an endless panic attack.” 

In order for her to get a medical leave approved, Ms. Bishop needed to get documents by a certain date from her doctor’s office that confirmed her long COVID diagnosis. She was able to get a couple of extensions, but Bishop says that with the burden that has been placed on our medical systems, getting in to see a doctor through her employer insurance was taking much longer than expected. By the time she got an appointment, she says, she had already been fired for missing too much work. Emails she provided showing exchanges between her and her employer verify her story. And without her health insurance, her appointment through that provider would no longer have been covered.

In July 2021, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services issued guidance recognizing long COVID as a disability “if the person’s condition or any of its symptoms is a ‘physical or mental’ impairment that ‘substantially limits’ one or more major life activities.” 

But getting access to disability benefits hasn’t been easy for people with long COVID. On top of having to be out of work for 12 months before being able to qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance, some of those who have applied say they have had to put up a fight to actually gain access to disability insurance. The Social Security Administration has yet to reveal just how many applications that cited long COVID have been denied so far.  

David Barnett, a former bartender in the Seattle area in his early 40s, got COVID-19 in March 2020. Before his infection, he spent much of his time working on his feet, bodybuilding, and hiking with his partner. But for the last nearly 3 years, even just going for a walk has been a major challenge. He says he has spent much of his post-COVID life either chair-bound or bed-bound because of his symptoms. 

He is currently on his partner’s health insurance plan but is still responsible for copays and out-of-network appointments and treatments. After being unable to bartend any more, he started a GoFundMe account and dug into his personal savings. He says he applied for food stamps and is getting ready to sell his truck. Mr. Barnett applied for disability in March of this year but says he was denied benefits by the Social Security Administration and has hired a lawyer to appeal.

He runs a 24-hour online support group on Zoom for people with long COVID and says that no one in his close circle has successfully gotten access to disability payments. 

Alba Azola, MD, codirector of Johns Hopkins University’s Post-Acute COVID-19 Team, says at least half of her patients need some level of accommodations to get back to work; most can, if given the proper accommodations, such as switching to a job that can be done sitting down, or with limited time standing. But there are still patients who have been more severely disabled by their long COVID symptoms. 

“Work is such a part of people’s identity. The people who are very impaired, all they want to do is to get back to work and their normal lives,” she says.

Many of Dr. Azola’s long COVID patients aren’t able to return to their original jobs. She says they often have to find new positions more tailored to their new realities. One patient, a nurse and mother of five who previously worked in a facility where she got COVID-19, was out of work for 9 months after her infection. She ultimately lost her job, and Dr. Azola says the patient’s employer was hesitant to provide her with any accommodations. The patient was finally able to find a different job as a nurse coordinator where she doesn’t have to be standing for more than 10 minutes at a time. 

Ge Bai, PhD, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says the novelty of long COVID and the continued uncertainty around it raise questions for health insurance providers. 

“There’s no well-defined pathway to treat or cure this condition,” Dr. Bai says. “Right now, employers have discretion to determine when a condition is being covered or not being covered. So people with long COVID do have a risk that their treatments won’t be covered.”

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

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published Oct. 8 on Medscape Editor-In-Chief Eric Topol’s “Ground Truths” column on Substack. 

A recent piece in The Economist about masks, and how at least half of the people in Japan are planning to continue to use masks indefinitely (where there was never a mandate), prompts a deeper look into what has been the secret of Japan’s extraordinary success in the pandemic. Over time it has the least cumulative deaths per capita of any major country in the world. That’s without a zero-Covid policy or any national lockdowns, which is why I have not included China as a comparator.

Before we get into that data, let’s take a look at the age pyramids for Japan and the United States. The No. 1 risk factor for death from COVID-19 is advanced age, and you can see that in Japan about 25% of the population is age 65 and older, whereas in the United States that proportion is substantially reduced at 15%. Sure there are differences in comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes, but there is also the trade-off of a much higher population density in Japan.

Besides masks, which were distributed early on by the government to the population in Japan, there was the “Avoid the 3Cs” cluster-busting strategy, widely disseminated in the spring of 2020, leveraging Pareto’s 80-20 principle, long before there were any vaccines available. For a good portion of the pandemic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan maintained a strict policy for border control, which while hard to quantify, may certainly have contributed to its success.

Besides these factors, once vaccines became available, Japan got the population with the primary series to 83% rapidly, even after getting a late start by many months compared with the United States, which has peaked at 68%. That’s a big gap.

But that gap got much worse when it came to boosters. Ninety-five percent of Japanese eligible compared with 40.8% of Americans have had a booster shot. Of note, that 95% in Japan pertains to the whole population. In the United States the percentage of people age 65 and older who have had two boosters is currently only 42%. I’ve previously reviewed the important lifesaving impact of two boosters among people age 65 and older from five independent studies during Omicron waves throughout the world.

Now let’s turn to cumulative fatalities in the two countries. There’s a huge, nearly ninefold difference, per capita. Using today’s Covid-19 Dashboard, there are cumulatively 45,533 deaths in Japan and 1,062,560 American deaths. That translates to 1 in 2,758 people in Japan compared with 1 in 315 Americans dying of COVID.

And if we look at excess mortality instead of confirmed COVID deaths, that enormous gap doesn’t change.

Obviously it would be good to have data for other COVID outcomes, such as hospitalizations, ICUs, and Long COVID, but they are not accessible.

Comparing Japan, the country that has fared the best, with the United States, one of the worst pandemic outcome results, leaves us with a sense that Prof Ian MacKay’s “Swiss cheese model” is the best explanation. It’s not just one thing. Masks, consistent evidence-based communication (3Cs) with attention to ventilation and air quality, and the outstanding uptake of vaccines and boosters all contributed to Japan’s success.

There is another factor to add to that model – Paxlovid. Its benefit of reducing hospitalizations and deaths for people over age 65 is unquestionable.

That’s why I had previously modified the Swiss cheese model to add Paxlovid.

But in the United States, where 15% of the population is 65 and older, they account for over 75% of the daily death toll, still in the range of 400 per day. Here, with a very high proportion of people age 65 and older left vulnerable without boosters, or primary vaccines, Paxlovid is only being given to less than 25% of the eligible (age 50+), and less people age 80 and older are getting Paxlovid than those age 45. The reasons that doctors are not prescribing it – worried about interactions for a 5-day course and rebound – are not substantiated.

Bottom line: In the United States we are not protecting our population anywhere near as well as Japan, as grossly evident by the fatalities among people at the highest risk. There needs to be far better uptake of boosters and use of Paxlovid in the age 65+ group, but the need for amped up protection is not at all restricted to this age subgroup. Across all age groups age 18 and over there is an 81% reduction of hospitalizations with two boosters with the most updated CDC data available, through the Omicron BA.5 wave.

No less the previous data through May 2022 showing protection from death across all ages with two boosters

And please don’t forget that around the world, over 20 million lives were saved, just in 2021, the first year of vaccines.

We can learn so much from a model country like Japan. Yes, we need nasal and variant-proof vaccines to effectively deal with the new variants that are already getting legs in places like XBB in Singapore and ones not on the radar yet. But right now we’ve got to do far better for people getting boosters and, when a person age 65 or older gets COVID, Paxlovid. Take a look at the Chris Hayes video segment when he pleaded for Americans to get a booster shot. Every day that vaccine waning of the U.S. population exceeds the small percentage of people who get a booster, our vulnerability increases. If we don’t get that on track, it’s likely going to be a rough winter ahead.

Dr. Topol is director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute in La Jolla, Calif. He has received research grants from the National Institutes of Health and reported conflicts of interest involving Dexcom, Illumina, Molecular Stethoscope, Quest Diagnostics, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

STOCKHOLM – New insights into the benefits of treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide for people with overweight or obesity – with or without diabetes – come from new findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Additional results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial, which matched tirzepatide against placebo in people with overweight or obesity, provide further details on the favorable changes produced by 72 weeks of tirzepatide treatment on outcomes that included fat and lean mass, insulin sensitivity, and patient-reported outcomes related to functional health and well being, reported Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

And results from a meta-analysis of six trials that compared tirzepatide (Mounjaro) against several different comparators in patients with type 2 diabetes further confirm the drug’s ability to reliably produce positive changes in blood lipids, especially by significantly lowering levels of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, and very LDL (VLDL) cholesterol, said Thomas Karagiannis, MD, PhD, in a separate report at the meeting.

Tirzepatide works as an agonist on receptors for both the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), and for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, and received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating people with type 2 diabetes in May 2022. On the basis of results from SURMOUNT-1, the FDA on Oct. 6 granted tirzepatide fast-track designation for a proposed labeling of the agent for treating people with overweight or obesity. This FDA decision will likely remain pending at least until results from a second trial in people with overweight or obesity but without diabetes, SURMOUNT-2, become available in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 people with obesity or overweight and at least one weight-related complication to a weekly injection of tirzepatide or placebo for 72 weeks. The study’s primary efficacy endpoints were the average reduction in weight from baseline, and the percentage of people in each treatment arm achieving weight loss of at least 5% from baseline.

For both endpoints, the outcomes with tirzepatide significantly surpassed placebo effects. Average weight loss ranged from 15%-21% from baseline, depending on dose, compared with 3% on placebo. The rate of participants with at least a 5% weight loss ranged from 85% to 91%, compared with 35% with placebo, as reported in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Cutting fat mass, boosting lean mass

New results from the trial reported by Dr. Jastreboff included a cut in fat mass from 46.2% of total body mass at baseline to 38.5% after 72 weeks, compared with a change from 46.8% at baseline to 44.7% after 72 weeks in the placebo group. Concurrently, lean mass increased with tirzepatide treatment from 51.0% at baseline to 58.1% after 72 weeks.

Participants who received tirzepatide, compared with those who received placebo, had “proportionately greater decrease in fat mass and proportionately greater increase in lean mass” compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist with Yale Medicine in New Haven, Conn. “I was impressed by the amount of visceral fat lost.”

These effects translated into a significant reduction in fat mass-to-lean mass ratio among the people treated with tirzepatide, with the greatest reduction in those who lost at least 15% of their starting weight. In that subgroup the fat-to-lean mass ratio dropped from 0.94 at baseline to 0.64 after 72 weeks of treatment, she said.
 

Focus on diet quality

People treated with tirzepatide “eat so little food that we need to improve the quality of what they eat to protect their muscle,” commented Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, a professor in the Diabetes Complications Research Centre of University College Dublin. “You no longer need a dietitian to help people lose weight, because the drug does that. You need dietitians to look after the nutritional health of patients while they lose weight,” Dr. le Roux said in a separate session at the meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Additional tests showed that blood glucose and insulin levels were all significantly lower among trial participants on all three doses of tirzepatide compared with those on placebo, and the tirzepatide-treated subjects also had significant, roughly twofold elevations in their insulin sensitivity measured by the Matsuda Index.

The impact of tirzepatide on glucose and insulin levels and on insulin sensitivity was similar regardless of whether study participants had normoglycemia or prediabetes at entry. By design, no study participants had diabetes.

The trial assessed patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes using the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Participants had significant increases in all eight domains within the SF-36 at all three tirzepatide doses, compared with placebo, at 72 weeks, Dr. Jastreboff reported. Improvements in the physical function domain increased most notably among study participants on tirzepatide who had functional limitations at baseline. Heart rate rose among participants who received either of the two highest tirzepatide doses by 2.3-2.5 beats/min, comparable with the effect of other injected incretin-based treatments.

Lipids improve in those with type 2 diabetes

Tirzepatide treatment also results in a “secondary effect” of improving levels of several lipids in people with type 2 diabetes, according to a meta-analysis of findings from six randomized trials. The meta-analysis collectively involved 4,502 participants treated for numerous weeks with one of three doses of tirzepatide and 2,144 people in comparator groups, reported Dr. Karagiannis, a diabetes researcher at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece).

Among the significant lipid changes linked with tirzepatide treatment, compared with placebo, were an average 13 mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol, an average 6 mg/dL decrease in VLDL cholesterol, and an average 50 mg/dL decrease in triglycerides. In comparison to a GLP-1 receptor agonist, an average 25 mg/dL decrease in triglycerides and an average 4 mg/dL reduction in VLDL cholesterol were seen. And trials comparing tirzepatide with basal insulin saw average reductions of 7% in LDL cholesterol, 15% in VLDL cholesterol, 15% in triglycerides, and an 8% increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. Karagiannis highlighted that the clinical impact of these effects is unclear, although he noted that the average reduction in LDL cholesterol relative to placebo is of a magnitude that could have a modest effect on long-term outcomes.

These lipid effects of tirzepatide “should be considered alongside” tirzepatide’s “key metabolic effects” on weight and hemoglobin A1c as well as the drug’s safety, concluded Dr. Karagiannis.

The tirzepatide trials were all funded by Eli Lilly, which markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an adviser and consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Scholars, Roche, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Karagiannis had no disclosures. Dr. le Roux has had financial relationships with Eli Lilly, as well as with Boehringer Ingelheim, Consilient Health, Covidion, Fractyl, GL Dynamics, Herbalife, Johnson & Johnson, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk.

STOCKHOLM – New insights into the benefits of treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide for people with overweight or obesity – with or without diabetes – come from new findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Additional results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial, which matched tirzepatide against placebo in people with overweight or obesity, provide further details on the favorable changes produced by 72 weeks of tirzepatide treatment on outcomes that included fat and lean mass, insulin sensitivity, and patient-reported outcomes related to functional health and well being, reported Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

And results from a meta-analysis of six trials that compared tirzepatide (Mounjaro) against several different comparators in patients with type 2 diabetes further confirm the drug’s ability to reliably produce positive changes in blood lipids, especially by significantly lowering levels of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, and very LDL (VLDL) cholesterol, said Thomas Karagiannis, MD, PhD, in a separate report at the meeting.

Tirzepatide works as an agonist on receptors for both the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), and for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, and received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating people with type 2 diabetes in May 2022. On the basis of results from SURMOUNT-1, the FDA on Oct. 6 granted tirzepatide fast-track designation for a proposed labeling of the agent for treating people with overweight or obesity. This FDA decision will likely remain pending at least until results from a second trial in people with overweight or obesity but without diabetes, SURMOUNT-2, become available in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 people with obesity or overweight and at least one weight-related complication to a weekly injection of tirzepatide or placebo for 72 weeks. The study’s primary efficacy endpoints were the average reduction in weight from baseline, and the percentage of people in each treatment arm achieving weight loss of at least 5% from baseline.

For both endpoints, the outcomes with tirzepatide significantly surpassed placebo effects. Average weight loss ranged from 15%-21% from baseline, depending on dose, compared with 3% on placebo. The rate of participants with at least a 5% weight loss ranged from 85% to 91%, compared with 35% with placebo, as reported in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Cutting fat mass, boosting lean mass

New results from the trial reported by Dr. Jastreboff included a cut in fat mass from 46.2% of total body mass at baseline to 38.5% after 72 weeks, compared with a change from 46.8% at baseline to 44.7% after 72 weeks in the placebo group. Concurrently, lean mass increased with tirzepatide treatment from 51.0% at baseline to 58.1% after 72 weeks.

Participants who received tirzepatide, compared with those who received placebo, had “proportionately greater decrease in fat mass and proportionately greater increase in lean mass” compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist with Yale Medicine in New Haven, Conn. “I was impressed by the amount of visceral fat lost.”

These effects translated into a significant reduction in fat mass-to-lean mass ratio among the people treated with tirzepatide, with the greatest reduction in those who lost at least 15% of their starting weight. In that subgroup the fat-to-lean mass ratio dropped from 0.94 at baseline to 0.64 after 72 weeks of treatment, she said.
 

Focus on diet quality

People treated with tirzepatide “eat so little food that we need to improve the quality of what they eat to protect their muscle,” commented Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, a professor in the Diabetes Complications Research Centre of University College Dublin. “You no longer need a dietitian to help people lose weight, because the drug does that. You need dietitians to look after the nutritional health of patients while they lose weight,” Dr. le Roux said in a separate session at the meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Additional tests showed that blood glucose and insulin levels were all significantly lower among trial participants on all three doses of tirzepatide compared with those on placebo, and the tirzepatide-treated subjects also had significant, roughly twofold elevations in their insulin sensitivity measured by the Matsuda Index.

The impact of tirzepatide on glucose and insulin levels and on insulin sensitivity was similar regardless of whether study participants had normoglycemia or prediabetes at entry. By design, no study participants had diabetes.

The trial assessed patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes using the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Participants had significant increases in all eight domains within the SF-36 at all three tirzepatide doses, compared with placebo, at 72 weeks, Dr. Jastreboff reported. Improvements in the physical function domain increased most notably among study participants on tirzepatide who had functional limitations at baseline. Heart rate rose among participants who received either of the two highest tirzepatide doses by 2.3-2.5 beats/min, comparable with the effect of other injected incretin-based treatments.

Lipids improve in those with type 2 diabetes

Tirzepatide treatment also results in a “secondary effect” of improving levels of several lipids in people with type 2 diabetes, according to a meta-analysis of findings from six randomized trials. The meta-analysis collectively involved 4,502 participants treated for numerous weeks with one of three doses of tirzepatide and 2,144 people in comparator groups, reported Dr. Karagiannis, a diabetes researcher at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece).

Among the significant lipid changes linked with tirzepatide treatment, compared with placebo, were an average 13 mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol, an average 6 mg/dL decrease in VLDL cholesterol, and an average 50 mg/dL decrease in triglycerides. In comparison to a GLP-1 receptor agonist, an average 25 mg/dL decrease in triglycerides and an average 4 mg/dL reduction in VLDL cholesterol were seen. And trials comparing tirzepatide with basal insulin saw average reductions of 7% in LDL cholesterol, 15% in VLDL cholesterol, 15% in triglycerides, and an 8% increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. Karagiannis highlighted that the clinical impact of these effects is unclear, although he noted that the average reduction in LDL cholesterol relative to placebo is of a magnitude that could have a modest effect on long-term outcomes.

These lipid effects of tirzepatide “should be considered alongside” tirzepatide’s “key metabolic effects” on weight and hemoglobin A1c as well as the drug’s safety, concluded Dr. Karagiannis.

The tirzepatide trials were all funded by Eli Lilly, which markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an adviser and consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Scholars, Roche, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Karagiannis had no disclosures. Dr. le Roux has had financial relationships with Eli Lilly, as well as with Boehringer Ingelheim, Consilient Health, Covidion, Fractyl, GL Dynamics, Herbalife, Johnson & Johnson, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk.

STOCKHOLM – New insights into the benefits of treatment with the “twincretin” tirzepatide for people with overweight or obesity – with or without diabetes – come from new findings reported at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Additional results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial, which matched tirzepatide against placebo in people with overweight or obesity, provide further details on the favorable changes produced by 72 weeks of tirzepatide treatment on outcomes that included fat and lean mass, insulin sensitivity, and patient-reported outcomes related to functional health and well being, reported Ania M. Jastreboff, MD, PhD.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

And results from a meta-analysis of six trials that compared tirzepatide (Mounjaro) against several different comparators in patients with type 2 diabetes further confirm the drug’s ability to reliably produce positive changes in blood lipids, especially by significantly lowering levels of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, and very LDL (VLDL) cholesterol, said Thomas Karagiannis, MD, PhD, in a separate report at the meeting.

Tirzepatide works as an agonist on receptors for both the glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1), and for the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, and received Food and Drug Administration approval for treating people with type 2 diabetes in May 2022. On the basis of results from SURMOUNT-1, the FDA on Oct. 6 granted tirzepatide fast-track designation for a proposed labeling of the agent for treating people with overweight or obesity. This FDA decision will likely remain pending at least until results from a second trial in people with overweight or obesity but without diabetes, SURMOUNT-2, become available in 2023.

SURMOUNT-1 randomized 2,539 people with obesity or overweight and at least one weight-related complication to a weekly injection of tirzepatide or placebo for 72 weeks. The study’s primary efficacy endpoints were the average reduction in weight from baseline, and the percentage of people in each treatment arm achieving weight loss of at least 5% from baseline.

For both endpoints, the outcomes with tirzepatide significantly surpassed placebo effects. Average weight loss ranged from 15%-21% from baseline, depending on dose, compared with 3% on placebo. The rate of participants with at least a 5% weight loss ranged from 85% to 91%, compared with 35% with placebo, as reported in July 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Cutting fat mass, boosting lean mass

New results from the trial reported by Dr. Jastreboff included a cut in fat mass from 46.2% of total body mass at baseline to 38.5% after 72 weeks, compared with a change from 46.8% at baseline to 44.7% after 72 weeks in the placebo group. Concurrently, lean mass increased with tirzepatide treatment from 51.0% at baseline to 58.1% after 72 weeks.

Participants who received tirzepatide, compared with those who received placebo, had “proportionately greater decrease in fat mass and proportionately greater increase in lean mass” compared with those who received placebo, said Dr. Jastreboff, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist with Yale Medicine in New Haven, Conn. “I was impressed by the amount of visceral fat lost.”

These effects translated into a significant reduction in fat mass-to-lean mass ratio among the people treated with tirzepatide, with the greatest reduction in those who lost at least 15% of their starting weight. In that subgroup the fat-to-lean mass ratio dropped from 0.94 at baseline to 0.64 after 72 weeks of treatment, she said.
 

Focus on diet quality

People treated with tirzepatide “eat so little food that we need to improve the quality of what they eat to protect their muscle,” commented Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, a professor in the Diabetes Complications Research Centre of University College Dublin. “You no longer need a dietitian to help people lose weight, because the drug does that. You need dietitians to look after the nutritional health of patients while they lose weight,” Dr. le Roux said in a separate session at the meeting.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Additional tests showed that blood glucose and insulin levels were all significantly lower among trial participants on all three doses of tirzepatide compared with those on placebo, and the tirzepatide-treated subjects also had significant, roughly twofold elevations in their insulin sensitivity measured by the Matsuda Index.

The impact of tirzepatide on glucose and insulin levels and on insulin sensitivity was similar regardless of whether study participants had normoglycemia or prediabetes at entry. By design, no study participants had diabetes.

The trial assessed patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes using the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Participants had significant increases in all eight domains within the SF-36 at all three tirzepatide doses, compared with placebo, at 72 weeks, Dr. Jastreboff reported. Improvements in the physical function domain increased most notably among study participants on tirzepatide who had functional limitations at baseline. Heart rate rose among participants who received either of the two highest tirzepatide doses by 2.3-2.5 beats/min, comparable with the effect of other injected incretin-based treatments.

Lipids improve in those with type 2 diabetes

Tirzepatide treatment also results in a “secondary effect” of improving levels of several lipids in people with type 2 diabetes, according to a meta-analysis of findings from six randomized trials. The meta-analysis collectively involved 4,502 participants treated for numerous weeks with one of three doses of tirzepatide and 2,144 people in comparator groups, reported Dr. Karagiannis, a diabetes researcher at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece).

Among the significant lipid changes linked with tirzepatide treatment, compared with placebo, were an average 13 mg/dL decrease in LDL cholesterol, an average 6 mg/dL decrease in VLDL cholesterol, and an average 50 mg/dL decrease in triglycerides. In comparison to a GLP-1 receptor agonist, an average 25 mg/dL decrease in triglycerides and an average 4 mg/dL reduction in VLDL cholesterol were seen. And trials comparing tirzepatide with basal insulin saw average reductions of 7% in LDL cholesterol, 15% in VLDL cholesterol, 15% in triglycerides, and an 8% increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. Karagiannis highlighted that the clinical impact of these effects is unclear, although he noted that the average reduction in LDL cholesterol relative to placebo is of a magnitude that could have a modest effect on long-term outcomes.

These lipid effects of tirzepatide “should be considered alongside” tirzepatide’s “key metabolic effects” on weight and hemoglobin A1c as well as the drug’s safety, concluded Dr. Karagiannis.

The tirzepatide trials were all funded by Eli Lilly, which markets tirzepatide (Mounjaro). Dr. Jastreboff has been an adviser and consultant to Eli Lilly, as well as to Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Scholars, Roche, and Weight Watchers, and she has received research funding from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. Dr. Karagiannis had no disclosures. Dr. le Roux has had financial relationships with Eli Lilly, as well as with Boehringer Ingelheim, Consilient Health, Covidion, Fractyl, GL Dynamics, Herbalife, Johnson & Johnson, Keyron, and Novo Nordisk.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

Upon finishing medical school, many of us recited this passage from a modernized version of the Hippocratic Oath. Though there has been controversy regarding the current relevancy of this oath, it can still serve as a reminder of the promises we made on behalf of our patients: To treat them ethically, with empathy and respect, and without pretension. Though I hadn’t thought about the Hippocratic Oath in ages, it came to mind recently after I read an article about weight trends in adults during the COVID pandemic.

No surprise – we gained weight during the initial surge at a rate of roughly a pound and a half per month following the initial shelter-in-place period. For some of us, that trend in weight gain worsened as the pandemic persisted. A survey conducted in February 2021 suggested that over 40% of adults who experienced undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic gained an average of 29 pounds (significantly more than the typical gain of 15 pounds, often referred to as the “Quarantine 15” or “COVID-15”).

Updated data, obtained via a review of electronic health records for over 15 million patients, shows that 39% of patients gained weight during the pandemic (10% of them gained more than 12.5 pounds, while 2% gained over 27.5 pounds). Though these recent numbers may be lower than previously reported, they still aren’t reassuring. As our bodies have changed, so has the concern for worsening weight stigma (bias against individuals because of their body size).

Research has already confirmed that sizeism has a negative impact on both a patient’s physical health and psychological well-being, and as medical providers, we’re part of the problem. We cause distress in our patients through disrespectful treatment and medical fat shaming, which can lead to cycles of disordered eating, reduced physical activity, and more weight gain. We discriminate based on weight, causing our patients to delay health care visits and other provider interactions, resulting in increased risks for morbidity and even mortality. We make assumptions that a patient’s presenting complaints are due to weight rather than other causes, resulting in missed diagnoses. And we recommend different treatments for obese patients with the same condition as nonobese patients simply because of their weight.

One study has suggested that over 40% of adults in the United States have suffered from weight stigma, and physicians and coworkers are listed as some of the most common sources. Another study suggests that nearly 70% of overweight or obese patients report feeling stigmatized by physicians, whether through expressed biases or purposeful avoidance (patients have previously reported that their providers addressed weight loss in fewer than 20% of their examinations).

As health care providers, we need to do better. We should all be willing to consider our own biases about body size, and there are self-assessments to help with this, including the Implicit Associations Test: Weight Bias. By becoming more self-aware, hopefully we can change the doctor-patient conversation about weight management.

Studies have shown that meaningful conversations with physicians can have a significant impact on patients’ attempts to change behaviors related to weight. Yet, many medical providers are not trained in how to counsel patients on nutrition, weight loss, and physical activity (if we bring it up at all). We need to better educate ourselves about weight science and treatments.

In the meantime, we can work on how we interact with our patients:

• Make sure that your practice space is accommodating and nondiscriminatory, with appropriately sized furniture in the waiting and exam rooms, large blood pressure cuffs and gowns, and size-inclusive reading materials.
• Ensure that your workplace has an antiharassment policy that includes sizeism.
• Be an ally and speak up against weight discrimination.
• Educate your office staff about weight stigma and ensure that they avoid commenting on the weight or body size of others (being recognized only for losing weight isn’t a compliment, and sharing “fat jokes” isn’t funny).
• Remember that a person’s body size tells you nothing about that person’s health behaviors. Stop assuming that larger body sizes are related to laziness, overeating, or a lack of motivation.
• Ask your overweight or obese patients if they are willing to talk about their weight before jumping into the topic.
• Practice (patients are more likely to report changing their exercise routine and attempting to lose weight with these techniques).
• Be mindful of your word choices; for example, it can be more helpful to focus on comorbidities (such as high blood pressure or prediabetes) rather than body weight, nutrition rather than dieting, and physical activity rather than specific exercises.

Regardless of how you feel about reciting the Hippocratic Oath, our patients, no matter their body size, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, as others have said in more eloquent ways than I. Let’s stop playing the fat shame game and help fight weight bias in medicine.

Dr. Devlin is president, Locum Infectious Disease Services, and an independent contractor for Weatherby Healthcare. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

Upon finishing medical school, many of us recited this passage from a modernized version of the Hippocratic Oath. Though there has been controversy regarding the current relevancy of this oath, it can still serve as a reminder of the promises we made on behalf of our patients: To treat them ethically, with empathy and respect, and without pretension. Though I hadn’t thought about the Hippocratic Oath in ages, it came to mind recently after I read an article about weight trends in adults during the COVID pandemic.

No surprise – we gained weight during the initial surge at a rate of roughly a pound and a half per month following the initial shelter-in-place period. For some of us, that trend in weight gain worsened as the pandemic persisted. A survey conducted in February 2021 suggested that over 40% of adults who experienced undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic gained an average of 29 pounds (significantly more than the typical gain of 15 pounds, often referred to as the “Quarantine 15” or “COVID-15”).

Updated data, obtained via a review of electronic health records for over 15 million patients, shows that 39% of patients gained weight during the pandemic (10% of them gained more than 12.5 pounds, while 2% gained over 27.5 pounds). Though these recent numbers may be lower than previously reported, they still aren’t reassuring. As our bodies have changed, so has the concern for worsening weight stigma (bias against individuals because of their body size).

Research has already confirmed that sizeism has a negative impact on both a patient’s physical health and psychological well-being, and as medical providers, we’re part of the problem. We cause distress in our patients through disrespectful treatment and medical fat shaming, which can lead to cycles of disordered eating, reduced physical activity, and more weight gain. We discriminate based on weight, causing our patients to delay health care visits and other provider interactions, resulting in increased risks for morbidity and even mortality. We make assumptions that a patient’s presenting complaints are due to weight rather than other causes, resulting in missed diagnoses. And we recommend different treatments for obese patients with the same condition as nonobese patients simply because of their weight.

One study has suggested that over 40% of adults in the United States have suffered from weight stigma, and physicians and coworkers are listed as some of the most common sources. Another study suggests that nearly 70% of overweight or obese patients report feeling stigmatized by physicians, whether through expressed biases or purposeful avoidance (patients have previously reported that their providers addressed weight loss in fewer than 20% of their examinations).

As health care providers, we need to do better. We should all be willing to consider our own biases about body size, and there are self-assessments to help with this, including the Implicit Associations Test: Weight Bias. By becoming more self-aware, hopefully we can change the doctor-patient conversation about weight management.

Studies have shown that meaningful conversations with physicians can have a significant impact on patients’ attempts to change behaviors related to weight. Yet, many medical providers are not trained in how to counsel patients on nutrition, weight loss, and physical activity (if we bring it up at all). We need to better educate ourselves about weight science and treatments.

In the meantime, we can work on how we interact with our patients:

• Make sure that your practice space is accommodating and nondiscriminatory, with appropriately sized furniture in the waiting and exam rooms, large blood pressure cuffs and gowns, and size-inclusive reading materials.
• Ensure that your workplace has an antiharassment policy that includes sizeism.
• Be an ally and speak up against weight discrimination.
• Educate your office staff about weight stigma and ensure that they avoid commenting on the weight or body size of others (being recognized only for losing weight isn’t a compliment, and sharing “fat jokes” isn’t funny).
• Remember that a person’s body size tells you nothing about that person’s health behaviors. Stop assuming that larger body sizes are related to laziness, overeating, or a lack of motivation.
• Ask your overweight or obese patients if they are willing to talk about their weight before jumping into the topic.
• Practice (patients are more likely to report changing their exercise routine and attempting to lose weight with these techniques).
• Be mindful of your word choices; for example, it can be more helpful to focus on comorbidities (such as high blood pressure or prediabetes) rather than body weight, nutrition rather than dieting, and physical activity rather than specific exercises.

Regardless of how you feel about reciting the Hippocratic Oath, our patients, no matter their body size, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, as others have said in more eloquent ways than I. Let’s stop playing the fat shame game and help fight weight bias in medicine.

Dr. Devlin is president, Locum Infectious Disease Services, and an independent contractor for Weatherby Healthcare. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

Upon finishing medical school, many of us recited this passage from a modernized version of the Hippocratic Oath. Though there has been controversy regarding the current relevancy of this oath, it can still serve as a reminder of the promises we made on behalf of our patients: To treat them ethically, with empathy and respect, and without pretension. Though I hadn’t thought about the Hippocratic Oath in ages, it came to mind recently after I read an article about weight trends in adults during the COVID pandemic.

No surprise – we gained weight during the initial surge at a rate of roughly a pound and a half per month following the initial shelter-in-place period. For some of us, that trend in weight gain worsened as the pandemic persisted. A survey conducted in February 2021 suggested that over 40% of adults who experienced undesired weight changes since the start of the pandemic gained an average of 29 pounds (significantly more than the typical gain of 15 pounds, often referred to as the “Quarantine 15” or “COVID-15”).

Updated data, obtained via a review of electronic health records for over 15 million patients, shows that 39% of patients gained weight during the pandemic (10% of them gained more than 12.5 pounds, while 2% gained over 27.5 pounds). Though these recent numbers may be lower than previously reported, they still aren’t reassuring. As our bodies have changed, so has the concern for worsening weight stigma (bias against individuals because of their body size).

Research has already confirmed that sizeism has a negative impact on both a patient’s physical health and psychological well-being, and as medical providers, we’re part of the problem. We cause distress in our patients through disrespectful treatment and medical fat shaming, which can lead to cycles of disordered eating, reduced physical activity, and more weight gain. We discriminate based on weight, causing our patients to delay health care visits and other provider interactions, resulting in increased risks for morbidity and even mortality. We make assumptions that a patient’s presenting complaints are due to weight rather than other causes, resulting in missed diagnoses. And we recommend different treatments for obese patients with the same condition as nonobese patients simply because of their weight.

One study has suggested that over 40% of adults in the United States have suffered from weight stigma, and physicians and coworkers are listed as some of the most common sources. Another study suggests that nearly 70% of overweight or obese patients report feeling stigmatized by physicians, whether through expressed biases or purposeful avoidance (patients have previously reported that their providers addressed weight loss in fewer than 20% of their examinations).

As health care providers, we need to do better. We should all be willing to consider our own biases about body size, and there are self-assessments to help with this, including the Implicit Associations Test: Weight Bias. By becoming more self-aware, hopefully we can change the doctor-patient conversation about weight management.

Studies have shown that meaningful conversations with physicians can have a significant impact on patients’ attempts to change behaviors related to weight. Yet, many medical providers are not trained in how to counsel patients on nutrition, weight loss, and physical activity (if we bring it up at all). We need to better educate ourselves about weight science and treatments.

In the meantime, we can work on how we interact with our patients:

• Make sure that your practice space is accommodating and nondiscriminatory, with appropriately sized furniture in the waiting and exam rooms, large blood pressure cuffs and gowns, and size-inclusive reading materials.
• Ensure that your workplace has an antiharassment policy that includes sizeism.
• Be an ally and speak up against weight discrimination.
• Educate your office staff about weight stigma and ensure that they avoid commenting on the weight or body size of others (being recognized only for losing weight isn’t a compliment, and sharing “fat jokes” isn’t funny).
• Remember that a person’s body size tells you nothing about that person’s health behaviors. Stop assuming that larger body sizes are related to laziness, overeating, or a lack of motivation.
• Ask your overweight or obese patients if they are willing to talk about their weight before jumping into the topic.
• Practice (patients are more likely to report changing their exercise routine and attempting to lose weight with these techniques).
• Be mindful of your word choices; for example, it can be more helpful to focus on comorbidities (such as high blood pressure or prediabetes) rather than body weight, nutrition rather than dieting, and physical activity rather than specific exercises.

Regardless of how you feel about reciting the Hippocratic Oath, our patients, no matter their body size, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, as others have said in more eloquent ways than I. Let’s stop playing the fat shame game and help fight weight bias in medicine.

Dr. Devlin is president, Locum Infectious Disease Services, and an independent contractor for Weatherby Healthcare. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Headache as a symptom of COVID-19 could help predict survival for inpatients with the disease, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

In the systematic review and meta-analysis, Víctor J. Gallardo, MSc, of the headache and neurologic pain research group, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and colleagues performed a search of studies in PubMed involving headache symptoms, disease survival, and inpatient COVID-19 cases published between December 2019 and December 2020. Overall, 48 studies were identified, consisting of 43,169 inpatients with COVID-19. Using random-effects pooling models, Mr. Gallardo and colleagues estimated the prevalence of headache for inpatients who survived COVID-19, compared with those who did not survive.

Within those studies, 35,132 inpatients (81.4%) survived, while 8,037 inpatients (18.6%) died from COVID-19. The researchers found that inpatients with COVID-19 and headache symptoms had a significantly higher survival rate compared with inpatients with COVID-19 without headache symptoms (risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-2.47; P < .0001). There was an overall pooled prevalence of headache as a COVID-19 symptom in 10.4% of inpatients, which was reduced to an estimated pooled prevalence of 9.7% after the researchers removed outlier studies in a sensitivity analysis.

Other COVID-19 symptoms that led to improved rates of survival among inpatients were anosmia (RR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.94-4.45) and myalgia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83) as well as nausea or vomiting (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), while symptoms such as dyspnea, diabetes, chronic liver diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, and chronic kidney diseases were more likely to increase the risk of dying from COVID-19.

The researchers noted several limitations in their meta-analysis that may make their findings less generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as including only studies that were published before COVID-19 vaccines were available and before more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants like the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant emerged. They also included studies where inpatients were not tested for COVID-19 because access to testing was not widely available.

“Our meta-analysis points toward a novel possibility: Headache arising secondary to an infection is not a ‘nonspecific’ symptom, but rather it may be a marker of enhanced likelihood of survival. That is, we find that patients reporting headache in the setting of COVID-19 are at reduced risk of death,” Mr. Gallardo and colleagues wrote.
 

More data needed on association between headache and COVID-19

While headache appeared to affect a small proportion of overall inpatients with COVID-19, the researchers noted this might be because individuals with COVID-19 and headache symptoms are less likely to require hospitalization or a visit to the ED. Another potential explanation is that “people with primary headache disorders, including migraine, may be more likely to report symptoms of COVID-19, but they also may be relatively less likely to experience a life-threatening COVID-19 disease course.”

The researchers said this potential association should be explored in future studies as well as in other viral infections or postviral syndromes such as long COVID. “Defining specific headache mechanisms that could enhance survival from viral infections represents an opportunity for the potential discovery of improved viral therapeutics, as well as for understanding whether, and how, primary headache disorders may be adaptive.”

In a comment, Morris Levin, MD, director of the University of California San Francisco Headache Center, said the findings “of this very thought-provoking review suggest that reporting a headache during a COVID-19 infection seems to be associated with better recovery in hospitalized patients.”

Dr. Levin, who was not involved with the study, acknowledged the researchers’ explanation for the overall low rate of headache in these inpatients as one possible explanation.

“Another could be that sick COVID patients were much more troubled by other symptoms like respiratory distress, which overshadowed their headache symptoms, particularly if they were very ill or if the headache pain was of only mild to moderate severity,” he said. “That could also be an alternate explanation for why less dangerously ill hospitalized patients seemed to have more headaches.”

One limitation he saw in the meta-analysis was how clearly the clinicians characterized headache symptoms in each reviewed study. Dr. Levin suggested a retrospective assessment of premorbid migraine history in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including survivors and fatalities, might have helped clarify this issue. “The headaches themselves were not characterized so drawing conclusions regarding migraine is challenging.”

Dr. Levin noted it is still not well understood how acute and persistent headaches and other neurological symptoms like mental fog occur in patients with COVID-19. We also do not fully understand the natural history of post-COVID headaches and other neurologic sequelae and the management options for acute and persistent neurological sequelae.

Three authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of grants, consultancies, speaker’s bureau positions, guidelines committee member appointments, and editorial board positions for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, societies, and other organizations. Mr. Gallardo reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Levin reported no relevant financial disclosures.

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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

About 1 in 20 people with long COVID continue to live with symptoms at 18 months, and another 42% reported only some improvement in their health and wellbeing in the same time frame, a large study out of Scotland found.

Multiple studies are evaluating people with long COVID in the hopes of figuring out why some people experience debilitating symptoms long after their primary infection ends and others either do not or recover more quickly. 

This current study is notable for its large size – 96,238 people. Researchers checked in with participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, and included a group of people never infected with the coronavirus to help investigators make a stronger case.

“A lot of the symptoms of long COVID are nonspecific and therefore can occur in people never infected,” says senior study author Jill P. Pell, MD, head of the School of Health and Wellbeing at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. 
 

Ruling out coincidence

This study shows that people experienced a wide range of symptoms after becoming infected with COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than those who were never infected, “thereby confirming that they were genuinely associated with COVID and not merely a coincidence,” she said. 

Among 21,525 people who had COVID-19 and had symptoms, tiredness, headache and muscle aches or muscle weakness were the most common ongoing symptoms. 

Loss of smell was almost nine times more likely in this group compared to the never-infected group in one analysis where researchers controlled for other possible factors. The risk for loss of taste was almost six times greater, followed by risk of breathlessness at three times higher. 

Long COVID risk was highest after a severe original infection and among older people, women, Black, and South Asian populations, people with socioeconomic disadvantages, and those with more than one underlying health condition.

Adding up the 6% with no recovery after 18 months and 42% with partial recovery means that between 6 and 18 months following symptomatic coronavirus infection, almost half of those infected still experience persistent symptoms.
 

Vaccination validated

On the plus side, people vaccinated against COVID-19 before getting infected had a lower risk for some persistent symptoms. In addition, Dr. Pell and colleagues found no evidence that people who experienced asymptomatic infection were likely to experience long COVID symptoms or challenges with activities of daily living. 

The findings of the Long-COVID in Scotland Study (Long-CISS) were published in the journal Nature Communications.
 

‘More long COVID than ever before’

“Unfortunately, these long COVID symptoms are not getting better as the cases of COVID get milder,” said Thomas Gut, DO, medical director for the post-COVID recovery program at Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital. “Quite the opposite – this infection has become so common in a community because it’s so mild and spreading so rapidly that we’re seeing more long COVID symptoms than ever before.” 

Although most patients he sees with long COVID resolve their symptoms within 3-6 months, “We do see some patients who require short-term disability because their symptoms continue past 6 months and out to 2 years,” said Dr. Gut, a hospitalist at Staten Island University Hospital, a member hospital of Northwell Health.

Patients with fatigue and neurocognitive symptoms “have a very tough time going back to work. Short-term disability gives them the time and finances to pursue specialty care with cardiology, pulmonary, and neurocognitive testing,” he said.
 

Support the whole person

The burden of living with long COVID goes beyond the persistent symptoms. “Long COVID can have wide-ranging impacts – not only on health but also quality of life and activities of daily living [including] work, mobility, self-care and more,” Dr. Pell said. “So, people with long COVID need support relevant to their individual needs and this may extend beyond the health care sector, for example including social services, school or workplace.”

Still,  Lisa Penziner, RN, founder of the COVID Long Haulers Support Group in Westchester and Long Island, N.Y., said while people with the most severe cases of COVID-19 tended to have the worst long COVID symptoms, they’re not the only ones. 

“We saw many post-COVID members who had mild cases and their long-haul symptoms were worse weeks later than the virus itself,” said Md. Penziner. 

She estimates that 80%-90% of her support group members recover within 6 months. “However, there are others who were experiencing symptoms for much longer.”

Respiratory treatment, physical therapy, and other follow-up doctor visits are common after 6 months, for example. 

“Additionally, there is a mental health component to recovery as well, meaning that the patient must learn to live while experiencing lingering, long-haul COVID symptoms in work and daily life,” said Ms. Penziner, director of special projects at North Westchester Restorative Therapy & Nursing. 

In addition to ongoing medical care, people with long COVID need understanding, she said.

“While long-haul symptoms do not happen to everyone, it is proven that many do experience long-haul symptoms, and the support of the community in understanding is important.”
 

Limitations of the study

Dr. Pell and colleagues noted some strengths and weaknesses to their study. For example, “as a general population study, our findings provide a better indication of the overall risk and burden of long COVID than hospitalized cohorts,” they noted. 

Also, the Scottish population is 96% White, so other long COVID studies with more diverse participants are warranted. 

Another potential weakness is the response rate of 16% among those invited to participate in the study, which Dr. Pell and colleagues addressed: “Our cohort included a large sample (33,281) of people previously infected and the response rate of 16% overall and 20% among people who had symptomatic infection was consistent with previous studies that have used SMS text invitations as the sole method of recruitment.”

“We tell patients this should last 3-6 months, but some patients have longer recovery periods,” Dr. Gut said. “We’re here for them. We have a lot of services available to help get them through the recovery process, and we have a lot of options to help support them.”

“What we found most helpful is when there is peer-to-peer support, reaffirming to the member that they are not alone in the long-haul battle, which has been a major benefit of the support group,” Ms. Penziner said.

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