Clinician Reviews

Physical exam revealed a plaque with multiple verrucous projections and clusters of smaller circular papules, all with associated thrombosed vessels. The plaque interrupted normal skin lines, consistent with a large, benign, plantar wart, also termed a mosaic wart when clusters of individual plantar warts form a single plaque.

Mosaic warts are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). They begin as individual papules or macules with a rough surface and small pinpoint capillaries. Plantar warts can be painful if located over a weight-bearing area of the foot. Plantar warts spread by autoinoculation from microtrauma to the foot. Picking at the wart, having it rub against a shoe insert, or exposing it to contaminated surfaces (such as a shower floor) can lead to the wart’s spread. Usually, the diagnosis of a plantar wart is based on clinical examination, with the main differential including a corn or callus. However, rare instances of squamous cell carcinoma or arsenical keratoses can mimic a plantar wart.

Although plantar warts can resolve spontaneously over months or years, patients often seek treatment. Warts may require multiple treatments and various therapies. Common first-line therapies include over-the-counter (OTC) salicylic acid and cryotherapy. The list of other therapies is lengthy, with no single agent credited with high cure rates in well-controlled trials. These therapies include intralesional candida antigen, topical 5 fluorouracil, and topical imiquimod, among many others.

Salicylic acid is available in several forms including 40% acid pads that may be cut to size and applied daily to affected areas. These pads may need to be reinforced with tape to improve adherence. Salicylic acid is also available as a 17% paint-on formulation that can be applied daily, with or without occlusion. This treatment usually requires 2 to 3 months of daily application.

When treated in the office, cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen (LN2) is a first-line therapy, with a cure rate of approximately 65%—similar to that of OTC salicylic acid.¹ Application of LN2 via a spray cannister every 2 to 4 weeks until clear is a common strategy. Freezing the area, letting it thaw, and repeating the freeze again in 1 sitting improves clearance. Pain from LN2 can be significant and not all patients can tolerate it. However, for a motivated patient, this can be more convenient than home treatments or a good option when home treatment has failed.

This patient chose cryotherapy, and his foot cleared completely after several rounds of in-office treatments.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Physical exam revealed a plaque with multiple verrucous projections and clusters of smaller circular papules, all with associated thrombosed vessels. The plaque interrupted normal skin lines, consistent with a large, benign, plantar wart, also termed a mosaic wart when clusters of individual plantar warts form a single plaque.

Mosaic warts are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). They begin as individual papules or macules with a rough surface and small pinpoint capillaries. Plantar warts can be painful if located over a weight-bearing area of the foot. Plantar warts spread by autoinoculation from microtrauma to the foot. Picking at the wart, having it rub against a shoe insert, or exposing it to contaminated surfaces (such as a shower floor) can lead to the wart’s spread. Usually, the diagnosis of a plantar wart is based on clinical examination, with the main differential including a corn or callus. However, rare instances of squamous cell carcinoma or arsenical keratoses can mimic a plantar wart.

Although plantar warts can resolve spontaneously over months or years, patients often seek treatment. Warts may require multiple treatments and various therapies. Common first-line therapies include over-the-counter (OTC) salicylic acid and cryotherapy. The list of other therapies is lengthy, with no single agent credited with high cure rates in well-controlled trials. These therapies include intralesional candida antigen, topical 5 fluorouracil, and topical imiquimod, among many others.

Salicylic acid is available in several forms including 40% acid pads that may be cut to size and applied daily to affected areas. These pads may need to be reinforced with tape to improve adherence. Salicylic acid is also available as a 17% paint-on formulation that can be applied daily, with or without occlusion. This treatment usually requires 2 to 3 months of daily application.

When treated in the office, cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen (LN2) is a first-line therapy, with a cure rate of approximately 65%—similar to that of OTC salicylic acid.¹ Application of LN2 via a spray cannister every 2 to 4 weeks until clear is a common strategy. Freezing the area, letting it thaw, and repeating the freeze again in 1 sitting improves clearance. Pain from LN2 can be significant and not all patients can tolerate it. However, for a motivated patient, this can be more convenient than home treatments or a good option when home treatment has failed.

This patient chose cryotherapy, and his foot cleared completely after several rounds of in-office treatments.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Physical exam revealed a plaque with multiple verrucous projections and clusters of smaller circular papules, all with associated thrombosed vessels. The plaque interrupted normal skin lines, consistent with a large, benign, plantar wart, also termed a mosaic wart when clusters of individual plantar warts form a single plaque.

Mosaic warts are caused by infection with human papillomavirus (HPV). They begin as individual papules or macules with a rough surface and small pinpoint capillaries. Plantar warts can be painful if located over a weight-bearing area of the foot. Plantar warts spread by autoinoculation from microtrauma to the foot. Picking at the wart, having it rub against a shoe insert, or exposing it to contaminated surfaces (such as a shower floor) can lead to the wart’s spread. Usually, the diagnosis of a plantar wart is based on clinical examination, with the main differential including a corn or callus. However, rare instances of squamous cell carcinoma or arsenical keratoses can mimic a plantar wart.

Although plantar warts can resolve spontaneously over months or years, patients often seek treatment. Warts may require multiple treatments and various therapies. Common first-line therapies include over-the-counter (OTC) salicylic acid and cryotherapy. The list of other therapies is lengthy, with no single agent credited with high cure rates in well-controlled trials. These therapies include intralesional candida antigen, topical 5 fluorouracil, and topical imiquimod, among many others.

Salicylic acid is available in several forms including 40% acid pads that may be cut to size and applied daily to affected areas. These pads may need to be reinforced with tape to improve adherence. Salicylic acid is also available as a 17% paint-on formulation that can be applied daily, with or without occlusion. This treatment usually requires 2 to 3 months of daily application.

When treated in the office, cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen (LN2) is a first-line therapy, with a cure rate of approximately 65%—similar to that of OTC salicylic acid.¹ Application of LN2 via a spray cannister every 2 to 4 weeks until clear is a common strategy. Freezing the area, letting it thaw, and repeating the freeze again in 1 sitting improves clearance. Pain from LN2 can be significant and not all patients can tolerate it. However, for a motivated patient, this can be more convenient than home treatments or a good option when home treatment has failed.

This patient chose cryotherapy, and his foot cleared completely after several rounds of in-office treatments.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.

ECRI evaluated seven rapid COVID-19 antigen tests available for purchase online and in retail stores since December.

None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.

If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.

To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.

More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.

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

Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.

ECRI evaluated seven rapid COVID-19 antigen tests available for purchase online and in retail stores since December.

None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.

If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.

To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.

More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.

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

Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.

ECRI evaluated seven rapid COVID-19 antigen tests available for purchase online and in retail stores since December.

None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.

If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.

To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.

More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

The Omicron surge accelerated as weekly cases of COVID-19 in children reached 580,000 for the first week of 2022, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total for the week of Dec. 31 to Jan. 6 – the highest since the pandemic began – was an increase of 78% over the previous week (325,000) and 192% higher than just 2 weeks before (199,000), the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. No region of the country was spared, as all four saw at least 50,000 more cases than the week before, but the increase was largest in the West and smallest in the Midwest.

“Nearly 8.5 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic; nearly 11% of these cases have been added in the past 2 weeks,” the AAP said.

The situation is the same for hospitalizations. On Dec. 15, the daily rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 years was 0.26 per 100,000, and by Jan. 7 it had more than quadrupled to 1.15 per 100,000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Before Omicron, the highest rate was 0.47 per 100,000 on Sept. 4, 2021.

The number of children occupying inpatient beds who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 went from 2,343 on Jan. 2 to 3,476 on Jan. 9, a jump of more than 48% in just 1 week. Texas had more hospitalized children (392) than any other state on Jan. 9, with California (339) and New York (313) the only other states over 300, according to data from the Department of Health & Human Services.

For vaccinations. however, the situation is definitely not the same. The number of children added to the ranks of those with at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine was down in early 2022 (Jan. 3-9) for both 5- to 11-year-olds (–8.2%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (–12.2%) but higher among those aged 12-15 (12.2%), compared with the previous week (Dec. 27 to Jan. 2), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Cumulative figures show that 26.3% of all children aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine and 17.2% were fully vaccinated as of Jan. 10, compared with 62.2% and 52.0% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 68.5% and 58.1% of those aged 16-17. Altogether, over 23.8 million children in those three age groups have received at least one dose and almost 18.6 million are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.
 

The Omicron surge accelerated as weekly cases of COVID-19 in children reached 580,000 for the first week of 2022, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total for the week of Dec. 31 to Jan. 6 – the highest since the pandemic began – was an increase of 78% over the previous week (325,000) and 192% higher than just 2 weeks before (199,000), the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. No region of the country was spared, as all four saw at least 50,000 more cases than the week before, but the increase was largest in the West and smallest in the Midwest.

“Nearly 8.5 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic; nearly 11% of these cases have been added in the past 2 weeks,” the AAP said.

The situation is the same for hospitalizations. On Dec. 15, the daily rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 years was 0.26 per 100,000, and by Jan. 7 it had more than quadrupled to 1.15 per 100,000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Before Omicron, the highest rate was 0.47 per 100,000 on Sept. 4, 2021.

The number of children occupying inpatient beds who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 went from 2,343 on Jan. 2 to 3,476 on Jan. 9, a jump of more than 48% in just 1 week. Texas had more hospitalized children (392) than any other state on Jan. 9, with California (339) and New York (313) the only other states over 300, according to data from the Department of Health & Human Services.

For vaccinations. however, the situation is definitely not the same. The number of children added to the ranks of those with at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine was down in early 2022 (Jan. 3-9) for both 5- to 11-year-olds (–8.2%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (–12.2%) but higher among those aged 12-15 (12.2%), compared with the previous week (Dec. 27 to Jan. 2), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Cumulative figures show that 26.3% of all children aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine and 17.2% were fully vaccinated as of Jan. 10, compared with 62.2% and 52.0% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 68.5% and 58.1% of those aged 16-17. Altogether, over 23.8 million children in those three age groups have received at least one dose and almost 18.6 million are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.
 

The Omicron surge accelerated as weekly cases of COVID-19 in children reached 580,000 for the first week of 2022, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The total for the week of Dec. 31 to Jan. 6 – the highest since the pandemic began – was an increase of 78% over the previous week (325,000) and 192% higher than just 2 weeks before (199,000), the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. No region of the country was spared, as all four saw at least 50,000 more cases than the week before, but the increase was largest in the West and smallest in the Midwest.

“Nearly 8.5 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic; nearly 11% of these cases have been added in the past 2 weeks,” the AAP said.

The situation is the same for hospitalizations. On Dec. 15, the daily rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 years was 0.26 per 100,000, and by Jan. 7 it had more than quadrupled to 1.15 per 100,000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Before Omicron, the highest rate was 0.47 per 100,000 on Sept. 4, 2021.

The number of children occupying inpatient beds who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 went from 2,343 on Jan. 2 to 3,476 on Jan. 9, a jump of more than 48% in just 1 week. Texas had more hospitalized children (392) than any other state on Jan. 9, with California (339) and New York (313) the only other states over 300, according to data from the Department of Health & Human Services.

For vaccinations. however, the situation is definitely not the same. The number of children added to the ranks of those with at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine was down in early 2022 (Jan. 3-9) for both 5- to 11-year-olds (–8.2%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (–12.2%) but higher among those aged 12-15 (12.2%), compared with the previous week (Dec. 27 to Jan. 2), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Cumulative figures show that 26.3% of all children aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine and 17.2% were fully vaccinated as of Jan. 10, compared with 62.2% and 52.0% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 68.5% and 58.1% of those aged 16-17. Altogether, over 23.8 million children in those three age groups have received at least one dose and almost 18.6 million are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.
 

In an observational study of more than 90,000 U.S. health care professionals, consuming even a small amount of olive oil was associated with reduced total mortality.

Compared with men and women who rarely or never consumed olive oil (the lowest intake), those who consumed greater than 0.5 tablespoon/day or more than 7 g/day (the highest intake) had a 19% lower mortality risk over a 28-year follow-up, starting from an average age of 56 years.

Moreover, compared with those with the lowest olive oil intake, those with the highest intake had a 19% lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a 17% lower risk of dying from cancer, a 29% lower risk of dying from neurodegenerative disease, and an 18% lower risk of dying from respiratory disease during follow-up.

masa44/iStock/Getty Images

The researchers estimate that replacing 10 g/day of margarine, butter, mayonnaise, or dairy fat with the same amount of olive oil is associated with an 8%-34% lower risk of death from various causes.

The study by Marta Guasch-Ferré, PhD, and colleagues was published online Jan. 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Results support plant-based dietary fat recommendations

“Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity,” the researchers summarize.

However, “I wouldn’t say that olive oil is the only way to help you live longer,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré, a senior research scientist in the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, cautioned in an interview with this news organization.

“Other things are very important, such as not smoking, doing physical activity, etc., but one recommendation could be to try to eat more plant-based food including olive oil and healthy fat,” she added, and to use it for cooking, salad dressing, and baking, and substitute it for saturated fat or animal fat, especially for cooking.

The study suggests that people should “consume a more plant-based diet and prioritize fatty acids such as olive oil because they have a better nutritional composition (high in phenols and antioxidants), instead of using butter or margarines or other animal fats that have been shown to have detrimental effects for health,” she added, which is consistent with recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

“That said,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré summarized, “replication is needed in other cohorts and populations to see if the results are similar.”

In an accompanying editorial, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, writes that “this was a well-designed study, with long-term follow-up and repeated measurements of dietary intake and other risk factors for diseases.”

“However, the difference in olive oil consumption between those with the highest and those with the lowest/no olive oil consumption was very low (0.5 tablespoon) and a [12%] reduced mortality risk was observed already at a much lower intake (0.5 teaspoon, about 1.5 g/day) of olive oil,” she noted in an email to this news organization.

“It’s a bit hard to believe that such a small amount could have an independent effect on mortality risk,” Dr. Larsson, associate professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, cautioned.

Like Dr. Guasch-Ferré, she noted that “just adding one or two teaspoons of olive oil to the diet each day will likely not change the risk of mortality.”

Rather, “people may need to make larger changes in the whole diet, not focus on fat only. An overall healthier diet, rich in nonrefined plant-based foods (vegetables, whole grains, nuts), low/no intake of processed foods, and a switch to healthier fat (eg, olive oil) is needed.”

Importantly, “this study cannot say anything about causality, that is, whether it’s olive oil specifically that reduces mortality risk or if there are many other beneficial factors that act together to reduce mortality rate among those with high olive oil consumption.”

The researchers acknowledge this observational study limitation and that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Novel findings regarding Alzheimer’s and respiratory disease

Dr. Larsson highlights two novel findings of this study.

First, it showed a 27% reduction in risk of dementia-related mortality for those in the highest versus lowest category of olive oil consumption. “Considering the lack of preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease and the high morbidity and mortality related to this disease, this finding, if confirmed, is of great public health importance,” she said.

Second, the study reported an inverse association of olive oil consumption with risk of respiratory disease mortality. “Because residual confounding from smoking cannot be ruled out,” Dr. Larsson said, “this finding is tentative and requires confirmation in a study that is less susceptible to confounding, such as a randomized trial.”

And although the current study and previous studies have found that consumption of olive oil may have health benefits, she identified several remaining questions.

“Are the associations causal or spurious?” she noted. Is olive oil consumption protective for certain cardiovascular diseases like stroke or atrial fibrillation only, as has been shown in other studies, or also for other major diseases and causes of death, she added. What is the amount of olive oil required for a protective effect?

Further, is the potential effect related to monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) or phenolic compounds; that is, “is the protective effect confined to polyphenol-rich extra-virgin olive oil or are refined olive oil and other vegetable oils as beneficial? More research is needed to address these questions,” she concludes.

“Further studies are needed,” the researchers agree, “to confirm the association of olive oil consumption with reduced mortality, clarify the mechanisms responsible, and quantify the dose/volume boundaries around this effect.”  
 

Virgin olive oil has more polyphenols

Olive oil, a key component of the Mediterranean diet, is high in MUFAs, especially oleic acid, as well as vitamin E and polyphenols, which contribute to its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, the researchers explain.

Virgin olive oil, produced by mechanically pressing ripe olives, contains multiple bioactive and antioxidant components and has an acidity of less than 1.5%. And extra-virgin olive oil is produced the same way but has a higher quality, more intense taste, and lower acidity (less than 1%).

Refined or processed olive oil contains less phytochemicals, as some are lost during processing; it usually contains more than 80% refined oil, plus virgin oil added back to enhance flavor, and may also be labeled “pure” or “light.” However, refined olive oil “still has a good amount of healthy fatty acids but less bioactive compounds,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Until now, no large prospective study has examined the link between olive oil intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a U.S. population, where olive oil consumption is limited, compared with Mediterranean countries.

The researchers identified 60,582 women in the Nurses’ Health Study and 31,801 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who were free of CVD or cancer in 1990, the first year that food frequency questionnaires in these studies asked about olive oil.

Participants replied to questionnaires every 4 years that asked about use of olive oil (for salad dressing, baking, frying, sautéing, and spreading on bread), other vegetable oils (for example, corn, safflower, soybean, canola oil), margarine, butter, and dairy fat. The researchers averaged the consumption of these fats during the follow-up years.

From 1990 to 2019, the average consumption of olive oil increased from 1.6 g/day to 4 g/day. Margarine in the 1990s contained saturated fat and trans fats, whereas more recently margarine contains beneficial olive oil or vegetable fat, Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Baseline olive oil consumption in this U.S. population “differed remarkably” from that in the Spanish population in the PREDIMED (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea) trial, which was, on average, 20-22 g/day of extra-virgin olive oil and 16-18 g/day of refined/mixed olive oil, Larsson pointed out.

Because olive oil consumption was so low in this U.S. study, the researchers did not distinguish between virgin/extra-virgin olive oil and refined/processed olive oil.

The participants were almost all White (99%) and were generally healthier than the average U.S. population; on average, they had a body mass index of 25.3-25.8 kg/m² and ate 4.8-7.2 fruits and vegetables/day.

Those with the highest olive oil consumption were more physically active, had a healthier diet, were more likely to have Southern European or Mediterranean ancestry, and were less likely to smoke.

During 28 years of follow-up, 36,856 participants died. The researchers classified the deaths into five categories: CVD, cancer, neurodegenerative disease (including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis), respiratory disease (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and all other causes (including suicide, injury, infections, diabetes, and kidney disease).

After adjusting for multiple confounders, compared with participants who rarely or never consumed olive oil, those in the highest quartile for olive oil consumption had a decreased risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 - 0.84) and from CVD (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87), cancer (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), neurodegenerative disease (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78), and respiratory disease (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93). 

There was no decrease in mortality in models where the researchers substituted olive oil for vegetable oil, suggesting that vegetable oils may provide similar health benefits as olive oil.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Guasch-Ferré was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Coauthor Salas-Salvadó is partially supported by the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies and received the virgin olive oil that was used in the PREDIMED and PREDIMED-Plus studies from the Patrimonio Communal Olivalero and Hojiblanca (Málaga, Spain). The other study authors and Dr. Larsson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In an observational study of more than 90,000 U.S. health care professionals, consuming even a small amount of olive oil was associated with reduced total mortality.

Compared with men and women who rarely or never consumed olive oil (the lowest intake), those who consumed greater than 0.5 tablespoon/day or more than 7 g/day (the highest intake) had a 19% lower mortality risk over a 28-year follow-up, starting from an average age of 56 years.

Moreover, compared with those with the lowest olive oil intake, those with the highest intake had a 19% lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a 17% lower risk of dying from cancer, a 29% lower risk of dying from neurodegenerative disease, and an 18% lower risk of dying from respiratory disease during follow-up.

masa44/iStock/Getty Images

The researchers estimate that replacing 10 g/day of margarine, butter, mayonnaise, or dairy fat with the same amount of olive oil is associated with an 8%-34% lower risk of death from various causes.

The study by Marta Guasch-Ferré, PhD, and colleagues was published online Jan. 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Results support plant-based dietary fat recommendations

“Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity,” the researchers summarize.

However, “I wouldn’t say that olive oil is the only way to help you live longer,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré, a senior research scientist in the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, cautioned in an interview with this news organization.

“Other things are very important, such as not smoking, doing physical activity, etc., but one recommendation could be to try to eat more plant-based food including olive oil and healthy fat,” she added, and to use it for cooking, salad dressing, and baking, and substitute it for saturated fat or animal fat, especially for cooking.

The study suggests that people should “consume a more plant-based diet and prioritize fatty acids such as olive oil because they have a better nutritional composition (high in phenols and antioxidants), instead of using butter or margarines or other animal fats that have been shown to have detrimental effects for health,” she added, which is consistent with recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

“That said,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré summarized, “replication is needed in other cohorts and populations to see if the results are similar.”

In an accompanying editorial, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, writes that “this was a well-designed study, with long-term follow-up and repeated measurements of dietary intake and other risk factors for diseases.”

“However, the difference in olive oil consumption between those with the highest and those with the lowest/no olive oil consumption was very low (0.5 tablespoon) and a [12%] reduced mortality risk was observed already at a much lower intake (0.5 teaspoon, about 1.5 g/day) of olive oil,” she noted in an email to this news organization.

“It’s a bit hard to believe that such a small amount could have an independent effect on mortality risk,” Dr. Larsson, associate professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, cautioned.

Like Dr. Guasch-Ferré, she noted that “just adding one or two teaspoons of olive oil to the diet each day will likely not change the risk of mortality.”

Rather, “people may need to make larger changes in the whole diet, not focus on fat only. An overall healthier diet, rich in nonrefined plant-based foods (vegetables, whole grains, nuts), low/no intake of processed foods, and a switch to healthier fat (eg, olive oil) is needed.”

Importantly, “this study cannot say anything about causality, that is, whether it’s olive oil specifically that reduces mortality risk or if there are many other beneficial factors that act together to reduce mortality rate among those with high olive oil consumption.”

The researchers acknowledge this observational study limitation and that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Novel findings regarding Alzheimer’s and respiratory disease

Dr. Larsson highlights two novel findings of this study.

First, it showed a 27% reduction in risk of dementia-related mortality for those in the highest versus lowest category of olive oil consumption. “Considering the lack of preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease and the high morbidity and mortality related to this disease, this finding, if confirmed, is of great public health importance,” she said.

Second, the study reported an inverse association of olive oil consumption with risk of respiratory disease mortality. “Because residual confounding from smoking cannot be ruled out,” Dr. Larsson said, “this finding is tentative and requires confirmation in a study that is less susceptible to confounding, such as a randomized trial.”

And although the current study and previous studies have found that consumption of olive oil may have health benefits, she identified several remaining questions.

“Are the associations causal or spurious?” she noted. Is olive oil consumption protective for certain cardiovascular diseases like stroke or atrial fibrillation only, as has been shown in other studies, or also for other major diseases and causes of death, she added. What is the amount of olive oil required for a protective effect?

Further, is the potential effect related to monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) or phenolic compounds; that is, “is the protective effect confined to polyphenol-rich extra-virgin olive oil or are refined olive oil and other vegetable oils as beneficial? More research is needed to address these questions,” she concludes.

“Further studies are needed,” the researchers agree, “to confirm the association of olive oil consumption with reduced mortality, clarify the mechanisms responsible, and quantify the dose/volume boundaries around this effect.”  
 

Virgin olive oil has more polyphenols

Olive oil, a key component of the Mediterranean diet, is high in MUFAs, especially oleic acid, as well as vitamin E and polyphenols, which contribute to its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, the researchers explain.

Virgin olive oil, produced by mechanically pressing ripe olives, contains multiple bioactive and antioxidant components and has an acidity of less than 1.5%. And extra-virgin olive oil is produced the same way but has a higher quality, more intense taste, and lower acidity (less than 1%).

Refined or processed olive oil contains less phytochemicals, as some are lost during processing; it usually contains more than 80% refined oil, plus virgin oil added back to enhance flavor, and may also be labeled “pure” or “light.” However, refined olive oil “still has a good amount of healthy fatty acids but less bioactive compounds,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Until now, no large prospective study has examined the link between olive oil intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a U.S. population, where olive oil consumption is limited, compared with Mediterranean countries.

The researchers identified 60,582 women in the Nurses’ Health Study and 31,801 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who were free of CVD or cancer in 1990, the first year that food frequency questionnaires in these studies asked about olive oil.

Participants replied to questionnaires every 4 years that asked about use of olive oil (for salad dressing, baking, frying, sautéing, and spreading on bread), other vegetable oils (for example, corn, safflower, soybean, canola oil), margarine, butter, and dairy fat. The researchers averaged the consumption of these fats during the follow-up years.

From 1990 to 2019, the average consumption of olive oil increased from 1.6 g/day to 4 g/day. Margarine in the 1990s contained saturated fat and trans fats, whereas more recently margarine contains beneficial olive oil or vegetable fat, Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Baseline olive oil consumption in this U.S. population “differed remarkably” from that in the Spanish population in the PREDIMED (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea) trial, which was, on average, 20-22 g/day of extra-virgin olive oil and 16-18 g/day of refined/mixed olive oil, Larsson pointed out.

Because olive oil consumption was so low in this U.S. study, the researchers did not distinguish between virgin/extra-virgin olive oil and refined/processed olive oil.

The participants were almost all White (99%) and were generally healthier than the average U.S. population; on average, they had a body mass index of 25.3-25.8 kg/m² and ate 4.8-7.2 fruits and vegetables/day.

Those with the highest olive oil consumption were more physically active, had a healthier diet, were more likely to have Southern European or Mediterranean ancestry, and were less likely to smoke.

During 28 years of follow-up, 36,856 participants died. The researchers classified the deaths into five categories: CVD, cancer, neurodegenerative disease (including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis), respiratory disease (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and all other causes (including suicide, injury, infections, diabetes, and kidney disease).

After adjusting for multiple confounders, compared with participants who rarely or never consumed olive oil, those in the highest quartile for olive oil consumption had a decreased risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 - 0.84) and from CVD (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87), cancer (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), neurodegenerative disease (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78), and respiratory disease (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93). 

There was no decrease in mortality in models where the researchers substituted olive oil for vegetable oil, suggesting that vegetable oils may provide similar health benefits as olive oil.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Guasch-Ferré was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Coauthor Salas-Salvadó is partially supported by the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies and received the virgin olive oil that was used in the PREDIMED and PREDIMED-Plus studies from the Patrimonio Communal Olivalero and Hojiblanca (Málaga, Spain). The other study authors and Dr. Larsson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In an observational study of more than 90,000 U.S. health care professionals, consuming even a small amount of olive oil was associated with reduced total mortality.

Compared with men and women who rarely or never consumed olive oil (the lowest intake), those who consumed greater than 0.5 tablespoon/day or more than 7 g/day (the highest intake) had a 19% lower mortality risk over a 28-year follow-up, starting from an average age of 56 years.

Moreover, compared with those with the lowest olive oil intake, those with the highest intake had a 19% lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, a 17% lower risk of dying from cancer, a 29% lower risk of dying from neurodegenerative disease, and an 18% lower risk of dying from respiratory disease during follow-up.

masa44/iStock/Getty Images

The researchers estimate that replacing 10 g/day of margarine, butter, mayonnaise, or dairy fat with the same amount of olive oil is associated with an 8%-34% lower risk of death from various causes.

The study by Marta Guasch-Ferré, PhD, and colleagues was published online Jan. 10 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Results support plant-based dietary fat recommendations

“Our results support current dietary recommendations to increase the intake of olive oil and other unsaturated vegetable oils in place of other fats to improve overall health and longevity,” the researchers summarize.

However, “I wouldn’t say that olive oil is the only way to help you live longer,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré, a senior research scientist in the department of nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, cautioned in an interview with this news organization.

“Other things are very important, such as not smoking, doing physical activity, etc., but one recommendation could be to try to eat more plant-based food including olive oil and healthy fat,” she added, and to use it for cooking, salad dressing, and baking, and substitute it for saturated fat or animal fat, especially for cooking.

The study suggests that people should “consume a more plant-based diet and prioritize fatty acids such as olive oil because they have a better nutritional composition (high in phenols and antioxidants), instead of using butter or margarines or other animal fats that have been shown to have detrimental effects for health,” she added, which is consistent with recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

“That said,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré summarized, “replication is needed in other cohorts and populations to see if the results are similar.”

In an accompanying editorial, Susanna C. Larsson, PhD, writes that “this was a well-designed study, with long-term follow-up and repeated measurements of dietary intake and other risk factors for diseases.”

“However, the difference in olive oil consumption between those with the highest and those with the lowest/no olive oil consumption was very low (0.5 tablespoon) and a [12%] reduced mortality risk was observed already at a much lower intake (0.5 teaspoon, about 1.5 g/day) of olive oil,” she noted in an email to this news organization.

“It’s a bit hard to believe that such a small amount could have an independent effect on mortality risk,” Dr. Larsson, associate professor of epidemiology at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, cautioned.

Like Dr. Guasch-Ferré, she noted that “just adding one or two teaspoons of olive oil to the diet each day will likely not change the risk of mortality.”

Rather, “people may need to make larger changes in the whole diet, not focus on fat only. An overall healthier diet, rich in nonrefined plant-based foods (vegetables, whole grains, nuts), low/no intake of processed foods, and a switch to healthier fat (eg, olive oil) is needed.”

Importantly, “this study cannot say anything about causality, that is, whether it’s olive oil specifically that reduces mortality risk or if there are many other beneficial factors that act together to reduce mortality rate among those with high olive oil consumption.”

The researchers acknowledge this observational study limitation and that the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
 

Novel findings regarding Alzheimer’s and respiratory disease

Dr. Larsson highlights two novel findings of this study.

First, it showed a 27% reduction in risk of dementia-related mortality for those in the highest versus lowest category of olive oil consumption. “Considering the lack of preventive strategies for Alzheimer’s disease and the high morbidity and mortality related to this disease, this finding, if confirmed, is of great public health importance,” she said.

Second, the study reported an inverse association of olive oil consumption with risk of respiratory disease mortality. “Because residual confounding from smoking cannot be ruled out,” Dr. Larsson said, “this finding is tentative and requires confirmation in a study that is less susceptible to confounding, such as a randomized trial.”

And although the current study and previous studies have found that consumption of olive oil may have health benefits, she identified several remaining questions.

“Are the associations causal or spurious?” she noted. Is olive oil consumption protective for certain cardiovascular diseases like stroke or atrial fibrillation only, as has been shown in other studies, or also for other major diseases and causes of death, she added. What is the amount of olive oil required for a protective effect?

Further, is the potential effect related to monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) or phenolic compounds; that is, “is the protective effect confined to polyphenol-rich extra-virgin olive oil or are refined olive oil and other vegetable oils as beneficial? More research is needed to address these questions,” she concludes.

“Further studies are needed,” the researchers agree, “to confirm the association of olive oil consumption with reduced mortality, clarify the mechanisms responsible, and quantify the dose/volume boundaries around this effect.”  
 

Virgin olive oil has more polyphenols

Olive oil, a key component of the Mediterranean diet, is high in MUFAs, especially oleic acid, as well as vitamin E and polyphenols, which contribute to its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, the researchers explain.

Virgin olive oil, produced by mechanically pressing ripe olives, contains multiple bioactive and antioxidant components and has an acidity of less than 1.5%. And extra-virgin olive oil is produced the same way but has a higher quality, more intense taste, and lower acidity (less than 1%).

Refined or processed olive oil contains less phytochemicals, as some are lost during processing; it usually contains more than 80% refined oil, plus virgin oil added back to enhance flavor, and may also be labeled “pure” or “light.” However, refined olive oil “still has a good amount of healthy fatty acids but less bioactive compounds,” Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Until now, no large prospective study has examined the link between olive oil intake and all-cause and cause-specific mortality in a U.S. population, where olive oil consumption is limited, compared with Mediterranean countries.

The researchers identified 60,582 women in the Nurses’ Health Study and 31,801 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study who were free of CVD or cancer in 1990, the first year that food frequency questionnaires in these studies asked about olive oil.

Participants replied to questionnaires every 4 years that asked about use of olive oil (for salad dressing, baking, frying, sautéing, and spreading on bread), other vegetable oils (for example, corn, safflower, soybean, canola oil), margarine, butter, and dairy fat. The researchers averaged the consumption of these fats during the follow-up years.

From 1990 to 2019, the average consumption of olive oil increased from 1.6 g/day to 4 g/day. Margarine in the 1990s contained saturated fat and trans fats, whereas more recently margarine contains beneficial olive oil or vegetable fat, Dr. Guasch-Ferré noted.

Baseline olive oil consumption in this U.S. population “differed remarkably” from that in the Spanish population in the PREDIMED (Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea) trial, which was, on average, 20-22 g/day of extra-virgin olive oil and 16-18 g/day of refined/mixed olive oil, Larsson pointed out.

Because olive oil consumption was so low in this U.S. study, the researchers did not distinguish between virgin/extra-virgin olive oil and refined/processed olive oil.

The participants were almost all White (99%) and were generally healthier than the average U.S. population; on average, they had a body mass index of 25.3-25.8 kg/m² and ate 4.8-7.2 fruits and vegetables/day.

Those with the highest olive oil consumption were more physically active, had a healthier diet, were more likely to have Southern European or Mediterranean ancestry, and were less likely to smoke.

During 28 years of follow-up, 36,856 participants died. The researchers classified the deaths into five categories: CVD, cancer, neurodegenerative disease (including Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis), respiratory disease (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and all other causes (including suicide, injury, infections, diabetes, and kidney disease).

After adjusting for multiple confounders, compared with participants who rarely or never consumed olive oil, those in the highest quartile for olive oil consumption had a decreased risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 - 0.84) and from CVD (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.87), cancer (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.89), neurodegenerative disease (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.78), and respiratory disease (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93). 

There was no decrease in mortality in models where the researchers substituted olive oil for vegetable oil, suggesting that vegetable oils may provide similar health benefits as olive oil.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Guasch-Ferré was supported by the American Diabetes Association. Coauthor Salas-Salvadó is partially supported by the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies and received the virgin olive oil that was used in the PREDIMED and PREDIMED-Plus studies from the Patrimonio Communal Olivalero and Hojiblanca (Málaga, Spain). The other study authors and Dr. Larsson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

Lowering the serum urate target to less than 0.20 mmol/L (<3.6 mg/dL) for patients with erosive gout does not achieve better gout outcomes and leads to more medication use and subsequent side effects, according to findings from a 2-year, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

Nicola Dalbeth, MD, of the bone and joint research group, department of medicine, faculty of medical and health sciences at University of Auckland (New Zealand), and coauthors noted that intensive serum urate lowering is difficult to achieve with oral urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and their findings suggest lower is not always better.

Their data, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, suggest the less-intensive standard target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (<5.4 mg/dL), currently recommended by rheumatology guidelines, is sufficient.

The more intensive target leads to a high medication burden and does not improve bone erosion score in erosive gout, the authors found.

Rheumatologist Angelo Gaffo, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not part of the study, said erosion scores are the best way to test outcomes and this study provides support for current gout treatment approaches.

“It is reassuring that the approach of treating to target is a good approach,” Dr. Gaffo said. “The very, very low targets were not better than the [standard target].”

The trial included 104 participants with erosive gout on oral ULT who were randomized either to a serum urate target of less than 0.20 mmol/L or less than 0.30 mmol/L.

Ninety participants completed the study: 44 (85%) in the intensive target group and 46 (88%) in the standard target group. All were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Participants were mostly men with an average age of 61. Average period of disease was 19 years and about half had a gout flare in the 3 months before enrollment in the study.
 

Fewer in intensive group hit target

The researchers found that serum urate at year 2 was significantly lower in the intensive target group, compared with the level in the standard target group (P = .002), but fewer participants in the intensive group hit their target, compared with those in the standard group (62% vs. 83%; P < .05).

The intensive group also required more medication. Participants in that group needed higher doses of the first-line treatment allopurinol (mean, 746 mg/day vs. 496 mg/day; P < .001). They also used more combination therapy (P = .0004).

Bone erosion scores were slightly better in both groups over 2 years, but there was no between-group difference (P = .20).

Rates of adverse and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

The authors noted that a previous study has shown that escalating doses of allopurinol to achieve a target lower than 0.36 mmol/L (6.48 mg/dL) can reduce progression of bone erosion in gout.

“However, improved erosion scores were not observed in this study,” the authors noted.

The authors said that emerging data on intensive serum urate lowering “may lead to erosion healing in gout,” particularly with pegloticase (Krystexxa), a treatment that leads to profound reductions in serum urate.

They highlighted a small longitudinal study of patients treated with pegloticase in whom researchers observed the filling in of bone erosions over a year.
 

Pegloticase not available outside United States

However, the authors explained, use of pegloticase is unlikely to be widespread for erosive gout because of its lack of availability outside the United States and the need for infusions every 2 weeks. Therefore, more feasible strategies are needed.

Guidelines suggest the serum urate target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (5.4 mg/dL) for people with severe gout, including those with chronic arthropathy.
 

Managing gout is a long-term process

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, a rheumatologist in a large group practice in the Washington, D.C., area and clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, who was not part of this study, said he would not come to the conclusion that some cynics might draw that there’s no point in trying to continually lower uric acid.

“Managing gout is a long-term proposition, and the long-term benefit of continuous uric acid lowering continue to accumulate over a period of time,” Dr. Baraf said.

He agreed with Dr. Dalbeth and colleagues that trying to get serum uric acid to less than 0.20 mmol/L is very difficult to achieve with oral drugs.

He said: “The study was not able to show a change in erosions because the amount of uric acid lowering wasn’t profound enough over a short enough period of time to show that, but over a longer period of time it might well show that.”

He said oral therapies work more slowly than enzyme-based therapies, such as pegloticase, but agreed there are barriers to using pegloticase.

“A drug like pegloticase costs about $26,000 per infusion every 2 weeks for a 6-month period. It’s not practical, and we tend to use it for people who are severely functionally impaired,” said Dr. Baraf.

It would still be a goal to keep the arthritis from progressing by using oral therapies, he said.

“I wouldn’t denigrate the fact that oral therapies are effective in decreasing flares over time, decreasing tophaceous deposits and probably – over a longer period of time allowing bone to heal. But 2 years is not enough time to show that.” He said showing benefit on erosions may take 5-10 years instead.

The study authors noted that the trial’s results “are not relevant to those without erosive disease, and to health care systems without access to a broad range of urate-lowering agents.”

Dr. Dalbeth reports personal fees (all less than $10,000) from AstraZeneca, Dyve BioSciences, Selecta, Arthrosi, Horizon, AbbVie, JW Pharmaceuticals, and PK Med outside the submitted work. The other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Gaffo reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baraf has been an investigator/consultant and speaker for Horizon Therapeutics, maker of pegloticase; is an investigator and a consultant to Selecta Biosciences; and has been an investigator, speaker, and consultant for Takeda.

Lowering the serum urate target to less than 0.20 mmol/L (<3.6 mg/dL) for patients with erosive gout does not achieve better gout outcomes and leads to more medication use and subsequent side effects, according to findings from a 2-year, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

Nicola Dalbeth, MD, of the bone and joint research group, department of medicine, faculty of medical and health sciences at University of Auckland (New Zealand), and coauthors noted that intensive serum urate lowering is difficult to achieve with oral urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and their findings suggest lower is not always better.

Their data, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, suggest the less-intensive standard target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (<5.4 mg/dL), currently recommended by rheumatology guidelines, is sufficient.

The more intensive target leads to a high medication burden and does not improve bone erosion score in erosive gout, the authors found.

Rheumatologist Angelo Gaffo, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not part of the study, said erosion scores are the best way to test outcomes and this study provides support for current gout treatment approaches.

“It is reassuring that the approach of treating to target is a good approach,” Dr. Gaffo said. “The very, very low targets were not better than the [standard target].”

The trial included 104 participants with erosive gout on oral ULT who were randomized either to a serum urate target of less than 0.20 mmol/L or less than 0.30 mmol/L.

Ninety participants completed the study: 44 (85%) in the intensive target group and 46 (88%) in the standard target group. All were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Participants were mostly men with an average age of 61. Average period of disease was 19 years and about half had a gout flare in the 3 months before enrollment in the study.
 

Fewer in intensive group hit target

The researchers found that serum urate at year 2 was significantly lower in the intensive target group, compared with the level in the standard target group (P = .002), but fewer participants in the intensive group hit their target, compared with those in the standard group (62% vs. 83%; P < .05).

The intensive group also required more medication. Participants in that group needed higher doses of the first-line treatment allopurinol (mean, 746 mg/day vs. 496 mg/day; P < .001). They also used more combination therapy (P = .0004).

Bone erosion scores were slightly better in both groups over 2 years, but there was no between-group difference (P = .20).

Rates of adverse and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

The authors noted that a previous study has shown that escalating doses of allopurinol to achieve a target lower than 0.36 mmol/L (6.48 mg/dL) can reduce progression of bone erosion in gout.

“However, improved erosion scores were not observed in this study,” the authors noted.

The authors said that emerging data on intensive serum urate lowering “may lead to erosion healing in gout,” particularly with pegloticase (Krystexxa), a treatment that leads to profound reductions in serum urate.

They highlighted a small longitudinal study of patients treated with pegloticase in whom researchers observed the filling in of bone erosions over a year.
 

Pegloticase not available outside United States

However, the authors explained, use of pegloticase is unlikely to be widespread for erosive gout because of its lack of availability outside the United States and the need for infusions every 2 weeks. Therefore, more feasible strategies are needed.

Guidelines suggest the serum urate target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (5.4 mg/dL) for people with severe gout, including those with chronic arthropathy.
 

Managing gout is a long-term process

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, a rheumatologist in a large group practice in the Washington, D.C., area and clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, who was not part of this study, said he would not come to the conclusion that some cynics might draw that there’s no point in trying to continually lower uric acid.

“Managing gout is a long-term proposition, and the long-term benefit of continuous uric acid lowering continue to accumulate over a period of time,” Dr. Baraf said.

He agreed with Dr. Dalbeth and colleagues that trying to get serum uric acid to less than 0.20 mmol/L is very difficult to achieve with oral drugs.

He said: “The study was not able to show a change in erosions because the amount of uric acid lowering wasn’t profound enough over a short enough period of time to show that, but over a longer period of time it might well show that.”

He said oral therapies work more slowly than enzyme-based therapies, such as pegloticase, but agreed there are barriers to using pegloticase.

“A drug like pegloticase costs about $26,000 per infusion every 2 weeks for a 6-month period. It’s not practical, and we tend to use it for people who are severely functionally impaired,” said Dr. Baraf.

It would still be a goal to keep the arthritis from progressing by using oral therapies, he said.

“I wouldn’t denigrate the fact that oral therapies are effective in decreasing flares over time, decreasing tophaceous deposits and probably – over a longer period of time allowing bone to heal. But 2 years is not enough time to show that.” He said showing benefit on erosions may take 5-10 years instead.

The study authors noted that the trial’s results “are not relevant to those without erosive disease, and to health care systems without access to a broad range of urate-lowering agents.”

Dr. Dalbeth reports personal fees (all less than $10,000) from AstraZeneca, Dyve BioSciences, Selecta, Arthrosi, Horizon, AbbVie, JW Pharmaceuticals, and PK Med outside the submitted work. The other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Gaffo reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baraf has been an investigator/consultant and speaker for Horizon Therapeutics, maker of pegloticase; is an investigator and a consultant to Selecta Biosciences; and has been an investigator, speaker, and consultant for Takeda.

Lowering the serum urate target to less than 0.20 mmol/L (<3.6 mg/dL) for patients with erosive gout does not achieve better gout outcomes and leads to more medication use and subsequent side effects, according to findings from a 2-year, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

Nicola Dalbeth, MD, of the bone and joint research group, department of medicine, faculty of medical and health sciences at University of Auckland (New Zealand), and coauthors noted that intensive serum urate lowering is difficult to achieve with oral urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and their findings suggest lower is not always better.

Their data, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, suggest the less-intensive standard target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (<5.4 mg/dL), currently recommended by rheumatology guidelines, is sufficient.

The more intensive target leads to a high medication burden and does not improve bone erosion score in erosive gout, the authors found.

Rheumatologist Angelo Gaffo, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not part of the study, said erosion scores are the best way to test outcomes and this study provides support for current gout treatment approaches.

“It is reassuring that the approach of treating to target is a good approach,” Dr. Gaffo said. “The very, very low targets were not better than the [standard target].”

The trial included 104 participants with erosive gout on oral ULT who were randomized either to a serum urate target of less than 0.20 mmol/L or less than 0.30 mmol/L.

Ninety participants completed the study: 44 (85%) in the intensive target group and 46 (88%) in the standard target group. All were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Participants were mostly men with an average age of 61. Average period of disease was 19 years and about half had a gout flare in the 3 months before enrollment in the study.
 

Fewer in intensive group hit target

The researchers found that serum urate at year 2 was significantly lower in the intensive target group, compared with the level in the standard target group (P = .002), but fewer participants in the intensive group hit their target, compared with those in the standard group (62% vs. 83%; P < .05).

The intensive group also required more medication. Participants in that group needed higher doses of the first-line treatment allopurinol (mean, 746 mg/day vs. 496 mg/day; P < .001). They also used more combination therapy (P = .0004).

Bone erosion scores were slightly better in both groups over 2 years, but there was no between-group difference (P = .20).

Rates of adverse and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

The authors noted that a previous study has shown that escalating doses of allopurinol to achieve a target lower than 0.36 mmol/L (6.48 mg/dL) can reduce progression of bone erosion in gout.

“However, improved erosion scores were not observed in this study,” the authors noted.

The authors said that emerging data on intensive serum urate lowering “may lead to erosion healing in gout,” particularly with pegloticase (Krystexxa), a treatment that leads to profound reductions in serum urate.

They highlighted a small longitudinal study of patients treated with pegloticase in whom researchers observed the filling in of bone erosions over a year.
 

Pegloticase not available outside United States

However, the authors explained, use of pegloticase is unlikely to be widespread for erosive gout because of its lack of availability outside the United States and the need for infusions every 2 weeks. Therefore, more feasible strategies are needed.

Guidelines suggest the serum urate target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (5.4 mg/dL) for people with severe gout, including those with chronic arthropathy.
 

Managing gout is a long-term process

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, a rheumatologist in a large group practice in the Washington, D.C., area and clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, who was not part of this study, said he would not come to the conclusion that some cynics might draw that there’s no point in trying to continually lower uric acid.

“Managing gout is a long-term proposition, and the long-term benefit of continuous uric acid lowering continue to accumulate over a period of time,” Dr. Baraf said.

He agreed with Dr. Dalbeth and colleagues that trying to get serum uric acid to less than 0.20 mmol/L is very difficult to achieve with oral drugs.

He said: “The study was not able to show a change in erosions because the amount of uric acid lowering wasn’t profound enough over a short enough period of time to show that, but over a longer period of time it might well show that.”

He said oral therapies work more slowly than enzyme-based therapies, such as pegloticase, but agreed there are barriers to using pegloticase.

“A drug like pegloticase costs about $26,000 per infusion every 2 weeks for a 6-month period. It’s not practical, and we tend to use it for people who are severely functionally impaired,” said Dr. Baraf.

It would still be a goal to keep the arthritis from progressing by using oral therapies, he said.

“I wouldn’t denigrate the fact that oral therapies are effective in decreasing flares over time, decreasing tophaceous deposits and probably – over a longer period of time allowing bone to heal. But 2 years is not enough time to show that.” He said showing benefit on erosions may take 5-10 years instead.

The study authors noted that the trial’s results “are not relevant to those without erosive disease, and to health care systems without access to a broad range of urate-lowering agents.”

Dr. Dalbeth reports personal fees (all less than $10,000) from AstraZeneca, Dyve BioSciences, Selecta, Arthrosi, Horizon, AbbVie, JW Pharmaceuticals, and PK Med outside the submitted work. The other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Gaffo reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baraf has been an investigator/consultant and speaker for Horizon Therapeutics, maker of pegloticase; is an investigator and a consultant to Selecta Biosciences; and has been an investigator, speaker, and consultant for Takeda.

Having specific health issues, including depressive symptoms and cardiovascular disease, as a middle-aged woman was associated with experiencing clinically important declines in health later in life, a new study finds.

The most predictive parameters of poorer health at age 65 were cardiovascular disease, clinically significant depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Osteoarthritis, lower education level, and higher body mass index (BMI) also were associated with poorer health status 10 years on, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH and colleagues wrote in their observational study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Determining a patient’s score on a health-related quality of life measure based on these variables might be useful in clinical practice to recognize midlife patients at increased risk for later health deterioration, Dr. Solomon, of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a statement. This measure is called the Short Form 36 (SF-36), and the researchers specifically focused on the physical component summary score (PCS) of this measure. The SF-36 is similar to the Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease risk prediction score, according to Dr. Solomon, who is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

Based on their risk scores, women could preemptively target modifiable risk factors before they enter old age, the investigators wrote.

“Age 55-65 may be a critical decade. A person’s health and factors during this period may set them on a path for their later adult years,” Dr. Solomon said in a statement. “The good news is that a large proportion of women at midlife are very stable and will not go on to experience declines. But being able to identify women at higher risk could help lead to interventions targeted to them.”
 

Study details

The study included a cohort of 1,091 women drawn from the 3,302-participant Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a racially and ethnically diverse group enrolled from six U.S. sites at or immediately before transition to menopause and followed for 10 years from age 55 to 65. The study sample, consisting of 24.6% Black, 24% Japanese or Chinese, and 51.9% White, had a median baseline age of 54.8 years and median BMI of 27 kg/m² at entry. The median baseline PCS score was 53.1 (interquartile range, 46.8-56.7).

Over 10 years, 206 (18.9%) of the women in the study experienced clinically important declines of at least 8 points in baseline characteristics at around age 55. The following were significantly associated with these declines:

• Having a higher BMI.
• Having osteoarthritis.
• Having a lower educational level.
• Being a current smoker.
• Having clinically significant depressive symptoms.
• Having cardiovascular disease.
• Having better (or higher) physical health and function score on the PCS.

The association between a higher PCS score and a greater decline might seem like an anomaly, Dr. Solomon said in an interview, but one interpretation of this finding is that women with higher or better scores at baseline have further to fall once other risk factors take effect.

With data analyzed from October 2020 to March 2021, the median 10-year change in PCS was –1.02 points, but 206 women experienced declines of 8 points or more.

Those with health declines were more likely to be Black and less likely to be Japanese. They were also more likely to have other comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and osteoporosis, and to report less physical activity.
 

Scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation, outside expert said

Commenting on the findings, Margaret J. Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University Langone Health, cautioned that a generalized scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation of women at midlife.

“I assess women around age 55 on a daily basis for health risk factors going forward. And while a number such as BMI can be helpful, I worry that reliance on a score could miss treating the individual,” Dr. Nachtigall said an interview. For instance, one woman might have a high BMI owing to greater muscle mass, which is heavy, while another may have a lower BMI but more fat-related weight, as well as exacerbating conditions such as hypertension that would elevate her risk. “You have to make the calculation for each person.”

Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved in the SWAN analysis, noted, however, that a big-data scoring system might be a useful adjunct to individual patient evaluation in that “it would make physicians look at all these many risk factors to identify those prone to decline.”
 

Study includes racially diverse population

According to the authors, while other studies have identified similar and other risk factors such as poor sleep, most have not included such a racially diverse population and have focused on women already in their senior years when the window of opportunity may already have closed.

“As a clinician and epidemiologist, I often think about the window of opportunity at midlife, when people are vital, engaged, and resilient,” said Dr. Solomon in the statement. “If we can identify risk factors and determine who is at risk, we may be able to find interventions that can stave off health declines and help put people on a better health trajectory.”

Eric M. Ascher, DO, who practices family medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and was not involved in the SWAN research, agreed with Dr. Solomon.

“Doctors who treat chronic conditions often meet patients when they are already suffering from a medical problem,” he said in an interview. “It is key to decrease your risk factors before it is too late.”

Dr. Ascher added that many primary care providers already rely heavily on scoring systems when determining level of risk and type of intervention. “Any additional risk factor-scoring systems that are easy to implement and will prevent chronic diseases would be something providers would want to use with their patients.”

Detailed analyses of larger at-risk populations are needed to validate these risk factors and identify others, the authors said.

SWAN is supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Institutes of Heath’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Solomon reported financial ties to Amgen, AbbVie and Moderna, UpToDate, and Arthritis & Rheumatology; as well as serving on the board of directors for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration outside of this work. Dr. Nachtigall and Dr. Ascher disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

Having specific health issues, including depressive symptoms and cardiovascular disease, as a middle-aged woman was associated with experiencing clinically important declines in health later in life, a new study finds.

The most predictive parameters of poorer health at age 65 were cardiovascular disease, clinically significant depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Osteoarthritis, lower education level, and higher body mass index (BMI) also were associated with poorer health status 10 years on, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH and colleagues wrote in their observational study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Determining a patient’s score on a health-related quality of life measure based on these variables might be useful in clinical practice to recognize midlife patients at increased risk for later health deterioration, Dr. Solomon, of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a statement. This measure is called the Short Form 36 (SF-36), and the researchers specifically focused on the physical component summary score (PCS) of this measure. The SF-36 is similar to the Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease risk prediction score, according to Dr. Solomon, who is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

Based on their risk scores, women could preemptively target modifiable risk factors before they enter old age, the investigators wrote.

“Age 55-65 may be a critical decade. A person’s health and factors during this period may set them on a path for their later adult years,” Dr. Solomon said in a statement. “The good news is that a large proportion of women at midlife are very stable and will not go on to experience declines. But being able to identify women at higher risk could help lead to interventions targeted to them.”
 

Study details

The study included a cohort of 1,091 women drawn from the 3,302-participant Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a racially and ethnically diverse group enrolled from six U.S. sites at or immediately before transition to menopause and followed for 10 years from age 55 to 65. The study sample, consisting of 24.6% Black, 24% Japanese or Chinese, and 51.9% White, had a median baseline age of 54.8 years and median BMI of 27 kg/m² at entry. The median baseline PCS score was 53.1 (interquartile range, 46.8-56.7).

Over 10 years, 206 (18.9%) of the women in the study experienced clinically important declines of at least 8 points in baseline characteristics at around age 55. The following were significantly associated with these declines:

• Having a higher BMI.
• Having osteoarthritis.
• Having a lower educational level.
• Being a current smoker.
• Having clinically significant depressive symptoms.
• Having cardiovascular disease.
• Having better (or higher) physical health and function score on the PCS.

The association between a higher PCS score and a greater decline might seem like an anomaly, Dr. Solomon said in an interview, but one interpretation of this finding is that women with higher or better scores at baseline have further to fall once other risk factors take effect.

With data analyzed from October 2020 to March 2021, the median 10-year change in PCS was –1.02 points, but 206 women experienced declines of 8 points or more.

Those with health declines were more likely to be Black and less likely to be Japanese. They were also more likely to have other comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and osteoporosis, and to report less physical activity.
 

Scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation, outside expert said

Commenting on the findings, Margaret J. Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University Langone Health, cautioned that a generalized scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation of women at midlife.

“I assess women around age 55 on a daily basis for health risk factors going forward. And while a number such as BMI can be helpful, I worry that reliance on a score could miss treating the individual,” Dr. Nachtigall said an interview. For instance, one woman might have a high BMI owing to greater muscle mass, which is heavy, while another may have a lower BMI but more fat-related weight, as well as exacerbating conditions such as hypertension that would elevate her risk. “You have to make the calculation for each person.”

Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved in the SWAN analysis, noted, however, that a big-data scoring system might be a useful adjunct to individual patient evaluation in that “it would make physicians look at all these many risk factors to identify those prone to decline.”
 

Study includes racially diverse population

According to the authors, while other studies have identified similar and other risk factors such as poor sleep, most have not included such a racially diverse population and have focused on women already in their senior years when the window of opportunity may already have closed.

“As a clinician and epidemiologist, I often think about the window of opportunity at midlife, when people are vital, engaged, and resilient,” said Dr. Solomon in the statement. “If we can identify risk factors and determine who is at risk, we may be able to find interventions that can stave off health declines and help put people on a better health trajectory.”

Eric M. Ascher, DO, who practices family medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and was not involved in the SWAN research, agreed with Dr. Solomon.

“Doctors who treat chronic conditions often meet patients when they are already suffering from a medical problem,” he said in an interview. “It is key to decrease your risk factors before it is too late.”

Dr. Ascher added that many primary care providers already rely heavily on scoring systems when determining level of risk and type of intervention. “Any additional risk factor-scoring systems that are easy to implement and will prevent chronic diseases would be something providers would want to use with their patients.”

Detailed analyses of larger at-risk populations are needed to validate these risk factors and identify others, the authors said.

SWAN is supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Institutes of Heath’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Solomon reported financial ties to Amgen, AbbVie and Moderna, UpToDate, and Arthritis & Rheumatology; as well as serving on the board of directors for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration outside of this work. Dr. Nachtigall and Dr. Ascher disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

Having specific health issues, including depressive symptoms and cardiovascular disease, as a middle-aged woman was associated with experiencing clinically important declines in health later in life, a new study finds.

The most predictive parameters of poorer health at age 65 were cardiovascular disease, clinically significant depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Osteoarthritis, lower education level, and higher body mass index (BMI) also were associated with poorer health status 10 years on, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH and colleagues wrote in their observational study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Determining a patient’s score on a health-related quality of life measure based on these variables might be useful in clinical practice to recognize midlife patients at increased risk for later health deterioration, Dr. Solomon, of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a statement. This measure is called the Short Form 36 (SF-36), and the researchers specifically focused on the physical component summary score (PCS) of this measure. The SF-36 is similar to the Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease risk prediction score, according to Dr. Solomon, who is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

Based on their risk scores, women could preemptively target modifiable risk factors before they enter old age, the investigators wrote.

“Age 55-65 may be a critical decade. A person’s health and factors during this period may set them on a path for their later adult years,” Dr. Solomon said in a statement. “The good news is that a large proportion of women at midlife are very stable and will not go on to experience declines. But being able to identify women at higher risk could help lead to interventions targeted to them.”
 

Study details

The study included a cohort of 1,091 women drawn from the 3,302-participant Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a racially and ethnically diverse group enrolled from six U.S. sites at or immediately before transition to menopause and followed for 10 years from age 55 to 65. The study sample, consisting of 24.6% Black, 24% Japanese or Chinese, and 51.9% White, had a median baseline age of 54.8 years and median BMI of 27 kg/m² at entry. The median baseline PCS score was 53.1 (interquartile range, 46.8-56.7).

Over 10 years, 206 (18.9%) of the women in the study experienced clinically important declines of at least 8 points in baseline characteristics at around age 55. The following were significantly associated with these declines:

• Having a higher BMI.
• Having osteoarthritis.
• Having a lower educational level.
• Being a current smoker.
• Having clinically significant depressive symptoms.
• Having cardiovascular disease.
• Having better (or higher) physical health and function score on the PCS.

The association between a higher PCS score and a greater decline might seem like an anomaly, Dr. Solomon said in an interview, but one interpretation of this finding is that women with higher or better scores at baseline have further to fall once other risk factors take effect.

With data analyzed from October 2020 to March 2021, the median 10-year change in PCS was –1.02 points, but 206 women experienced declines of 8 points or more.

Those with health declines were more likely to be Black and less likely to be Japanese. They were also more likely to have other comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and osteoporosis, and to report less physical activity.
 

Scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation, outside expert said

Commenting on the findings, Margaret J. Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University Langone Health, cautioned that a generalized scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation of women at midlife.

“I assess women around age 55 on a daily basis for health risk factors going forward. And while a number such as BMI can be helpful, I worry that reliance on a score could miss treating the individual,” Dr. Nachtigall said an interview. For instance, one woman might have a high BMI owing to greater muscle mass, which is heavy, while another may have a lower BMI but more fat-related weight, as well as exacerbating conditions such as hypertension that would elevate her risk. “You have to make the calculation for each person.”

Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved in the SWAN analysis, noted, however, that a big-data scoring system might be a useful adjunct to individual patient evaluation in that “it would make physicians look at all these many risk factors to identify those prone to decline.”
 

Study includes racially diverse population

According to the authors, while other studies have identified similar and other risk factors such as poor sleep, most have not included such a racially diverse population and have focused on women already in their senior years when the window of opportunity may already have closed.

“As a clinician and epidemiologist, I often think about the window of opportunity at midlife, when people are vital, engaged, and resilient,” said Dr. Solomon in the statement. “If we can identify risk factors and determine who is at risk, we may be able to find interventions that can stave off health declines and help put people on a better health trajectory.”

Eric M. Ascher, DO, who practices family medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and was not involved in the SWAN research, agreed with Dr. Solomon.

“Doctors who treat chronic conditions often meet patients when they are already suffering from a medical problem,” he said in an interview. “It is key to decrease your risk factors before it is too late.”

Dr. Ascher added that many primary care providers already rely heavily on scoring systems when determining level of risk and type of intervention. “Any additional risk factor-scoring systems that are easy to implement and will prevent chronic diseases would be something providers would want to use with their patients.”

Detailed analyses of larger at-risk populations are needed to validate these risk factors and identify others, the authors said.

SWAN is supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Institutes of Heath’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Solomon reported financial ties to Amgen, AbbVie and Moderna, UpToDate, and Arthritis & Rheumatology; as well as serving on the board of directors for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration outside of this work. Dr. Nachtigall and Dr. Ascher disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

Hospital admissions of U.S. children younger than 5 – the only group ineligible for vaccination – have reached their peak since the start of the pandemic, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said the higher numbers show the importance of vaccination for all eligible groups.

“This is the highest number of pediatric hospitalizations we’ve seen throughout the pandemic, which we said about Delta until now,” she said at a CDC briefing Friday. “This very well may be that there are just more cases out there, and our children are more vulnerable when they have more cases surrounding them.”

Despite the skyrocketing admissions, hospitalizations are still relatively low for children, she said. The hospitalization rate for children under 5 is 4 in 100,000, and it’s about 1 in 100,000 in children 5-17.

Dr. Walensky said not all children are being hospitalized for COVID-19 – some are admitted for unrelated issues and test positive but don’t have symptoms.

“We are still learning more about the severity of Omicron in children,” she said, noting that just over 50% of children 12-18 are fully vaccinated, while only 16% of those ages 5-11 are fully vaccinated.

Friday’s teleconference was the first CDC briefing in several months and comes on the heels of recent guideline updates for testing and isolation that have left the American public dumbfounded. When asked why the briefing was held, Dr. Walensky said there had been interest in hearing more from the CDC, saying, “I anticipate this will be the first of many briefings.”

She also defended the confusing guideline changes, saying, “We’re in an unprecedented time with the speed of Omicron cases rising. … This is hard, and I am committed to continuing to improve as we learn more about the science and communicate that to you.”

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

Hospital admissions of U.S. children younger than 5 – the only group ineligible for vaccination – have reached their peak since the start of the pandemic, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said the higher numbers show the importance of vaccination for all eligible groups.

“This is the highest number of pediatric hospitalizations we’ve seen throughout the pandemic, which we said about Delta until now,” she said at a CDC briefing Friday. “This very well may be that there are just more cases out there, and our children are more vulnerable when they have more cases surrounding them.”

Despite the skyrocketing admissions, hospitalizations are still relatively low for children, she said. The hospitalization rate for children under 5 is 4 in 100,000, and it’s about 1 in 100,000 in children 5-17.

Dr. Walensky said not all children are being hospitalized for COVID-19 – some are admitted for unrelated issues and test positive but don’t have symptoms.

“We are still learning more about the severity of Omicron in children,” she said, noting that just over 50% of children 12-18 are fully vaccinated, while only 16% of those ages 5-11 are fully vaccinated.

Friday’s teleconference was the first CDC briefing in several months and comes on the heels of recent guideline updates for testing and isolation that have left the American public dumbfounded. When asked why the briefing was held, Dr. Walensky said there had been interest in hearing more from the CDC, saying, “I anticipate this will be the first of many briefings.”

She also defended the confusing guideline changes, saying, “We’re in an unprecedented time with the speed of Omicron cases rising. … This is hard, and I am committed to continuing to improve as we learn more about the science and communicate that to you.”

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

Hospital admissions of U.S. children younger than 5 – the only group ineligible for vaccination – have reached their peak since the start of the pandemic, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said the higher numbers show the importance of vaccination for all eligible groups.

“This is the highest number of pediatric hospitalizations we’ve seen throughout the pandemic, which we said about Delta until now,” she said at a CDC briefing Friday. “This very well may be that there are just more cases out there, and our children are more vulnerable when they have more cases surrounding them.”

Despite the skyrocketing admissions, hospitalizations are still relatively low for children, she said. The hospitalization rate for children under 5 is 4 in 100,000, and it’s about 1 in 100,000 in children 5-17.

Dr. Walensky said not all children are being hospitalized for COVID-19 – some are admitted for unrelated issues and test positive but don’t have symptoms.

“We are still learning more about the severity of Omicron in children,” she said, noting that just over 50% of children 12-18 are fully vaccinated, while only 16% of those ages 5-11 are fully vaccinated.

Friday’s teleconference was the first CDC briefing in several months and comes on the heels of recent guideline updates for testing and isolation that have left the American public dumbfounded. When asked why the briefing was held, Dr. Walensky said there had been interest in hearing more from the CDC, saying, “I anticipate this will be the first of many briefings.”

She also defended the confusing guideline changes, saying, “We’re in an unprecedented time with the speed of Omicron cases rising. … This is hard, and I am committed to continuing to improve as we learn more about the science and communicate that to you.”

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