Cardiology News

TOPLINE:

Metformin cuts the risk for diabetic nephropathy (DN) and major kidney and cardiovascular events in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) across various renal function states.

METHODOLOGY:

Metformin is a first-line treatment in US and South Korean T2D management guidelines, except for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (stage, ≥ 4; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], < 30).

The study used data from the databases of three tertiary hospitals in South Korea to assess the effect of metformin on long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes across various renal function states in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Four groups of treatment-control comparative cohorts were identified at each hospital: Patients who had not yet developed DN at T2D diagnosis (mean age in treatment and control cohorts, 61-65 years) and those with reduced renal function (CKD stages 3A, 3B, and 4).

Patients who continuously received metformin after T2D diagnosis and beyond the observation period were 1:1 propensity score matched with controls who were prescribed oral hypoglycemic agents other than metformin.

Primary outcomes were net major adverse cardiovascular events including strokes (MACEs) or in-hospital death and a composite of major adverse kidney events (MAKEs) or in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

Among patients without DN at T2D diagnosis, the continuous use of metformin vs other oral hypoglycemic agents was associated with a lower risk for:

Overt DN (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95),

MACEs (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92), and

MAKEs (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62).

Compared with non-metformin or discontinued metformin use, the continuous use of metformin was associated with a lower risk for MACE across CKD stages 3A (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87), 3B (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), and 4 (IRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).

Similarly, the risk for MAKE was lower among continuous metformin users than in nonusers or discontinuous metformin users across CKD stage 3A (IRR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.43), 3B (IRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.40-0.48), and 4 (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51).

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of the current study is highlighted by its integration of real-world clinical data, which encompasses patients diagnosed with CDK4 [eGRF, 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2], a group currently considered contraindicated,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yongjin Yi, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea, was published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a possibility of selection bias because of the retrospective and observational nature of this study. Despite achieving a 1:1 propensity score matching to address the confounding factors, some variables, such as serum albumin and A1c levels, remained unbalanced after matching. The paper did not include observation length or patient numbers, but in response to an email query from Medscape, Yi notes that in one hospital, the mean duration of observation for the control and treatment groups was about 6.5 years, and the total number in the treatment groups across data from three hospitals was 11,675, with the same number of matched controls.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Korean Society of Nephrology, a grant from the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund, and the Bio&Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin cuts the risk for diabetic nephropathy (DN) and major kidney and cardiovascular events in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) across various renal function states.

METHODOLOGY:

Metformin is a first-line treatment in US and South Korean T2D management guidelines, except for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (stage, ≥ 4; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], < 30).

The study used data from the databases of three tertiary hospitals in South Korea to assess the effect of metformin on long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes across various renal function states in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Four groups of treatment-control comparative cohorts were identified at each hospital: Patients who had not yet developed DN at T2D diagnosis (mean age in treatment and control cohorts, 61-65 years) and those with reduced renal function (CKD stages 3A, 3B, and 4).

Patients who continuously received metformin after T2D diagnosis and beyond the observation period were 1:1 propensity score matched with controls who were prescribed oral hypoglycemic agents other than metformin.

Primary outcomes were net major adverse cardiovascular events including strokes (MACEs) or in-hospital death and a composite of major adverse kidney events (MAKEs) or in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

Among patients without DN at T2D diagnosis, the continuous use of metformin vs other oral hypoglycemic agents was associated with a lower risk for:

Overt DN (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95),

MACEs (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92), and

MAKEs (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62).

Compared with non-metformin or discontinued metformin use, the continuous use of metformin was associated with a lower risk for MACE across CKD stages 3A (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87), 3B (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), and 4 (IRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).

Similarly, the risk for MAKE was lower among continuous metformin users than in nonusers or discontinuous metformin users across CKD stage 3A (IRR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.43), 3B (IRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.40-0.48), and 4 (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51).

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of the current study is highlighted by its integration of real-world clinical data, which encompasses patients diagnosed with CDK4 [eGRF, 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2], a group currently considered contraindicated,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yongjin Yi, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea, was published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a possibility of selection bias because of the retrospective and observational nature of this study. Despite achieving a 1:1 propensity score matching to address the confounding factors, some variables, such as serum albumin and A1c levels, remained unbalanced after matching. The paper did not include observation length or patient numbers, but in response to an email query from Medscape, Yi notes that in one hospital, the mean duration of observation for the control and treatment groups was about 6.5 years, and the total number in the treatment groups across data from three hospitals was 11,675, with the same number of matched controls.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Korean Society of Nephrology, a grant from the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund, and the Bio&Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin cuts the risk for diabetic nephropathy (DN) and major kidney and cardiovascular events in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) across various renal function states.

METHODOLOGY:

Metformin is a first-line treatment in US and South Korean T2D management guidelines, except for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (stage, ≥ 4; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], < 30).

The study used data from the databases of three tertiary hospitals in South Korea to assess the effect of metformin on long-term renal and cardiovascular outcomes across various renal function states in patients with newly diagnosed T2D.

Four groups of treatment-control comparative cohorts were identified at each hospital: Patients who had not yet developed DN at T2D diagnosis (mean age in treatment and control cohorts, 61-65 years) and those with reduced renal function (CKD stages 3A, 3B, and 4).

Patients who continuously received metformin after T2D diagnosis and beyond the observation period were 1:1 propensity score matched with controls who were prescribed oral hypoglycemic agents other than metformin.

Primary outcomes were net major adverse cardiovascular events including strokes (MACEs) or in-hospital death and a composite of major adverse kidney events (MAKEs) or in-hospital death.

TAKEAWAY:

Among patients without DN at T2D diagnosis, the continuous use of metformin vs other oral hypoglycemic agents was associated with a lower risk for:

Overt DN (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95),

MACEs (IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92), and

MAKEs (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.33-0.62).

Compared with non-metformin or discontinued metformin use, the continuous use of metformin was associated with a lower risk for MACE across CKD stages 3A (IRR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87), 3B (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93), and 4 (IRR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85).

Similarly, the risk for MAKE was lower among continuous metformin users than in nonusers or discontinuous metformin users across CKD stage 3A (IRR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.43), 3B (IRR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.40-0.48), and 4 (IRR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51).

IN PRACTICE:

“The significance of the current study is highlighted by its integration of real-world clinical data, which encompasses patients diagnosed with CDK4 [eGRF, 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2], a group currently considered contraindicated,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Yongjin Yi, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan-si, Republic of Korea, was published in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

There may be a possibility of selection bias because of the retrospective and observational nature of this study. Despite achieving a 1:1 propensity score matching to address the confounding factors, some variables, such as serum albumin and A1c levels, remained unbalanced after matching. The paper did not include observation length or patient numbers, but in response to an email query from Medscape, Yi notes that in one hospital, the mean duration of observation for the control and treatment groups was about 6.5 years, and the total number in the treatment groups across data from three hospitals was 11,675, with the same number of matched controls.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by a Young Investigator Research Grant from the Korean Society of Nephrology, a grant from the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund, and the Bio&Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation funded by the Korean government. The authors disclosed no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanks to decades of successful vector control strategies, vector-borne transmission of Chagas disease has significantly decreased in many regions. Oral ingestion of Trypanosoma cruzi through contaminated food and beverages, however, is increasing. Unlike vector transmission, oral transmission of Chagas disease entails high lethality in pediatric and adult populations.

“The oral transmission of Chagas disease is becoming a much more recognized route, and it is crucial to understand that people can die from this type of transmission,” Norman L. Beatty, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases and global medicine at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, told this news organization. Dr. Beatty is the lead author of a recent article on the subject.

In regions where the parasite circulates in the environment, people are consuming foods, fruit juices, and possibly wild animal meat that may be contaminated. “As we experience changes in our environment and in the way we consume food, it is crucial to consider how food preparation is carried out in areas where T cruzi transmission occurs in the environment,” said Dr. Beatty. “And as organic farming methods without insecticides become increasingly common, more research is needed in these areas, both in Latin America and in the United States, to understand if oral transmission of T cruzi is occurring.”

In the Amazon basin, foodborne transmission is already the leading cause of acute Chagas disease. It has been described in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, and Venezuela.

Dr. Beatty’s colleagues recently treated a Brazilian patient at the hospital in Florida. “He came to our hospital very ill, with acute myocarditis after consuming contaminated açaí.” Clarifying that there is widespread awareness about oral transmission in Brazil, he stated, “We are concerned that it may not be recognized in other areas of Latin America.”

Mexico and regions of Central America have little to no information on oral transmission, but it is likely occurring, and cases may be going undetected in the region, said Dr. Beatty.

He investigated the issue in Colombia as part of an international collaboration involving the University of Antioquia, aiming to find ways to mitigate oral transmission and create a model that can be used throughout Latin America and the United States. For the Colombia study, they reviewed all cases reported to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, and oral transmission turned out to be more common than the research group expected. “Still, I imagine that in certain areas with limited resources…there are many more cases that are not being reported.

“A myth I would like to dispel is that Chagas disease is not being transmitted in the United States,” Dr. Beatty added. He mentioned that at least 30 American states have vectors, and in Florida, it was documented that triatomines invaded homes and bit residents. In addition, 30% of these insects are infected with T cruzi. Research is underway to determine whether Floridians are becoming infected and if they are also at risk of contracting Chagas disease orally, said Dr. Beatty. “In the United States, we know very little about how many people are infected and what the infection routes are. Much more research is needed.”

Roberto Chuit, MD, PhD, a doctor in public health and an external consultant for the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), agreed that this route of food contamination, which occurs because of vector-borne parasites, was until recently masked or hidden by the predominance of vector presence. Just as it began to gain importance as other transmission routes were controlled, “it now has extremely high importance in the Americas, as does vertical transmission,” he said.

In 2023, more than 50 years after the first description of oral transmission, the PAHO expert meeting proposed to alert health services and the broader community about the severity and potential lethality of oral Chagas disease outbreaks to elicit immediate responses and mitigation measures. The body also proposed conducting studies to provide detailed information on the contamination source and the wild vectors present in oral transmission foci.
 

Unique Clinical Manifestations

The exacerbated signs and symptoms of oral infection (see sidebar) are attributed to the high parasite loads in contaminated food and beverages. A single crushed triatomine along with a food or beverage harboring T cruzi can contain an estimated 600,000 metacyclic trypomastigotes, compared with 3000-4000 per µL when infection occurs by triatomine fecal matter. The robust systemic immune response observed in patients with acute oral Chagas disease is thought to result from more efficient transmission after penetration through the oral, pharyngeal, and gastric mucosae.
 

Seven Things to Know About Orally Transmitted Chagas Disease

1. It presents with exacerbated symptoms and rapid disease progression in immunocompetent individuals. This presentation is not common in vector-borne, congenital, or transfusion-related transmission. It can cause fulminant myocarditis and heart failure, meningoencephalitis, or potentially fatal shock due to parasitemia.

2. Most patients (71%-100%) with acute oral Chagas present with fever.

3. Electrocardiographic abnormalities, specifically ventricular depolarization alterations and pericardial involvement, are observed in most patients.

4. Facial edema, which typically affects the entire face and parts of the lips, is present in 57%-100% of patients with acute oral Chagas disease. In those with acute symptoms from vector transmission, unilateral periorbital swelling (Romaña’s sign) is more common.

5. Other notable systemic symptoms include edema of the lower extremities, myalgia, generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal discomfort, dyspnea, vomiting, diarrhea, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, headache, chest pain, cutaneous erythematous rash, jaundice, arthralgia, epistaxis, hematemesis, melena, and palpitations.

6. The incubation period after oral ingestion of products contaminated with Trypanosoma cruzi is approximately 3-22 days, in contrast to 4-15 days for vector-borne transmission and 8-160 days for transfusion and transplant-related transmission.

7. Patients need antiparasitic drugs immediately.
 

Thinking Epidemiologically

Dr. Chuit recalled that suspicion of food contamination should be based on epidemiology, especially in outbreaks affecting several people and in regions where Chagas vectors have been described. Sometimes, however, a single careless tourist consumes contaminated products.

“The difficulty is that many times it is not considered, and if it is not considered, the search for the parasite is not requested,” said Dr. Chuit. He added that it is common for the professional to consider Chagas disease only if viral and bacterial isolation tests are negative. Clinicians sometimes consider Chagas disease because the patient has not responded to regular treatments for other causes, such as antibiotics and hydration.

Epidemiology is important, especially when Chagas disease is diagnosed in groups or a family, because they are usually not isolated cases but outbreaks of 3-40 cases, according to Dr. Chuit. “Under these conditions, it must be quickly considered…that this parasite may be involved.”

One of the difficulties is that the source of these oral transmissions is not recognized most of the time. In general, the sources are usually foods that are more likely to be contaminated by insects or insect feces, such as orange juice or sugarcane. But in fact, any food or beverage left unattended could be contaminated by vectors or possible secretions from infected marsupial odoriferous glands.

An analysis of 32 outbreaks from 1965 to 2022 showed that the main foods involved in oral transmission were homemade fruit juices. But different vector species were identified, and the reservoirs were mainly dogs, rodents, and large American opossums (Didelphis).

The largest oral Chagas outbreak was linked to the consumption of contaminated guava juice in a primary school in Caracas, Venezuela. Nonindustrially produced açaí is a common source of orally acquired Chagas disease in Brazil. In Colombia, Chagas disease has been associated with the consumption of palm wine, sugar cane, and tangerine juice. Other oral transmission routes include consuming meat from wild animals and ingesting blood from infected armadillos, which is related to a traditional medicine practice.
 

Deadly Yet Easily Treatable

In the outbreak of 119 confirmed and suspected cases in Venezuela, 20.3% required hospitalization, and a 5-year-old child died of acute myocarditis. These percentages differ from those reported in vector transmission, which is asymptomatic in the acute phase for 95%-99% of cases or will only develop a mild febrile illness that resolves on its own.

“Not all cases will present as severe, because depending on the inoculum, there may be individuals with subclinical situations. But any food poisoning that occurs in endemic areas, where food is not properly controlled, and these street foods are associated with processes in jungle areas, raises the possibility that T cruzi is involved and should be considered as a differential diagnosis,» noted Dr. Chuit. “The treatment is highly effective, and people recover quickly.”

“The most important thing about oral transmission of Chagas is that someone infected in this way needs antiparasitic drugs immediately. We can cure them if we treat them immediately,” said Dr. Beatty, adding that treatment is sometimes delayed due to lack of access to appropriate antiparasitic drugs. “Here in the United States and in Latin America, it is quite common for healthcare professionals not to understand the differences between vector, vertical, and oral transmission. By not treating these patients, they become ill quickly.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Chuit declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanks to decades of successful vector control strategies, vector-borne transmission of Chagas disease has significantly decreased in many regions. Oral ingestion of Trypanosoma cruzi through contaminated food and beverages, however, is increasing. Unlike vector transmission, oral transmission of Chagas disease entails high lethality in pediatric and adult populations.

“The oral transmission of Chagas disease is becoming a much more recognized route, and it is crucial to understand that people can die from this type of transmission,” Norman L. Beatty, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases and global medicine at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, told this news organization. Dr. Beatty is the lead author of a recent article on the subject.

In regions where the parasite circulates in the environment, people are consuming foods, fruit juices, and possibly wild animal meat that may be contaminated. “As we experience changes in our environment and in the way we consume food, it is crucial to consider how food preparation is carried out in areas where T cruzi transmission occurs in the environment,” said Dr. Beatty. “And as organic farming methods without insecticides become increasingly common, more research is needed in these areas, both in Latin America and in the United States, to understand if oral transmission of T cruzi is occurring.”

In the Amazon basin, foodborne transmission is already the leading cause of acute Chagas disease. It has been described in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, and Venezuela.

Dr. Beatty’s colleagues recently treated a Brazilian patient at the hospital in Florida. “He came to our hospital very ill, with acute myocarditis after consuming contaminated açaí.” Clarifying that there is widespread awareness about oral transmission in Brazil, he stated, “We are concerned that it may not be recognized in other areas of Latin America.”

Mexico and regions of Central America have little to no information on oral transmission, but it is likely occurring, and cases may be going undetected in the region, said Dr. Beatty.

He investigated the issue in Colombia as part of an international collaboration involving the University of Antioquia, aiming to find ways to mitigate oral transmission and create a model that can be used throughout Latin America and the United States. For the Colombia study, they reviewed all cases reported to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, and oral transmission turned out to be more common than the research group expected. “Still, I imagine that in certain areas with limited resources…there are many more cases that are not being reported.

“A myth I would like to dispel is that Chagas disease is not being transmitted in the United States,” Dr. Beatty added. He mentioned that at least 30 American states have vectors, and in Florida, it was documented that triatomines invaded homes and bit residents. In addition, 30% of these insects are infected with T cruzi. Research is underway to determine whether Floridians are becoming infected and if they are also at risk of contracting Chagas disease orally, said Dr. Beatty. “In the United States, we know very little about how many people are infected and what the infection routes are. Much more research is needed.”

Roberto Chuit, MD, PhD, a doctor in public health and an external consultant for the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), agreed that this route of food contamination, which occurs because of vector-borne parasites, was until recently masked or hidden by the predominance of vector presence. Just as it began to gain importance as other transmission routes were controlled, “it now has extremely high importance in the Americas, as does vertical transmission,” he said.

In 2023, more than 50 years after the first description of oral transmission, the PAHO expert meeting proposed to alert health services and the broader community about the severity and potential lethality of oral Chagas disease outbreaks to elicit immediate responses and mitigation measures. The body also proposed conducting studies to provide detailed information on the contamination source and the wild vectors present in oral transmission foci.
 

Unique Clinical Manifestations

The exacerbated signs and symptoms of oral infection (see sidebar) are attributed to the high parasite loads in contaminated food and beverages. A single crushed triatomine along with a food or beverage harboring T cruzi can contain an estimated 600,000 metacyclic trypomastigotes, compared with 3000-4000 per µL when infection occurs by triatomine fecal matter. The robust systemic immune response observed in patients with acute oral Chagas disease is thought to result from more efficient transmission after penetration through the oral, pharyngeal, and gastric mucosae.
 

Seven Things to Know About Orally Transmitted Chagas Disease

1. It presents with exacerbated symptoms and rapid disease progression in immunocompetent individuals. This presentation is not common in vector-borne, congenital, or transfusion-related transmission. It can cause fulminant myocarditis and heart failure, meningoencephalitis, or potentially fatal shock due to parasitemia.

2. Most patients (71%-100%) with acute oral Chagas present with fever.

3. Electrocardiographic abnormalities, specifically ventricular depolarization alterations and pericardial involvement, are observed in most patients.

4. Facial edema, which typically affects the entire face and parts of the lips, is present in 57%-100% of patients with acute oral Chagas disease. In those with acute symptoms from vector transmission, unilateral periorbital swelling (Romaña’s sign) is more common.

5. Other notable systemic symptoms include edema of the lower extremities, myalgia, generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal discomfort, dyspnea, vomiting, diarrhea, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, headache, chest pain, cutaneous erythematous rash, jaundice, arthralgia, epistaxis, hematemesis, melena, and palpitations.

6. The incubation period after oral ingestion of products contaminated with Trypanosoma cruzi is approximately 3-22 days, in contrast to 4-15 days for vector-borne transmission and 8-160 days for transfusion and transplant-related transmission.

7. Patients need antiparasitic drugs immediately.
 

Thinking Epidemiologically

Dr. Chuit recalled that suspicion of food contamination should be based on epidemiology, especially in outbreaks affecting several people and in regions where Chagas vectors have been described. Sometimes, however, a single careless tourist consumes contaminated products.

“The difficulty is that many times it is not considered, and if it is not considered, the search for the parasite is not requested,” said Dr. Chuit. He added that it is common for the professional to consider Chagas disease only if viral and bacterial isolation tests are negative. Clinicians sometimes consider Chagas disease because the patient has not responded to regular treatments for other causes, such as antibiotics and hydration.

Epidemiology is important, especially when Chagas disease is diagnosed in groups or a family, because they are usually not isolated cases but outbreaks of 3-40 cases, according to Dr. Chuit. “Under these conditions, it must be quickly considered…that this parasite may be involved.”

One of the difficulties is that the source of these oral transmissions is not recognized most of the time. In general, the sources are usually foods that are more likely to be contaminated by insects or insect feces, such as orange juice or sugarcane. But in fact, any food or beverage left unattended could be contaminated by vectors or possible secretions from infected marsupial odoriferous glands.

An analysis of 32 outbreaks from 1965 to 2022 showed that the main foods involved in oral transmission were homemade fruit juices. But different vector species were identified, and the reservoirs were mainly dogs, rodents, and large American opossums (Didelphis).

The largest oral Chagas outbreak was linked to the consumption of contaminated guava juice in a primary school in Caracas, Venezuela. Nonindustrially produced açaí is a common source of orally acquired Chagas disease in Brazil. In Colombia, Chagas disease has been associated with the consumption of palm wine, sugar cane, and tangerine juice. Other oral transmission routes include consuming meat from wild animals and ingesting blood from infected armadillos, which is related to a traditional medicine practice.
 

Deadly Yet Easily Treatable

In the outbreak of 119 confirmed and suspected cases in Venezuela, 20.3% required hospitalization, and a 5-year-old child died of acute myocarditis. These percentages differ from those reported in vector transmission, which is asymptomatic in the acute phase for 95%-99% of cases or will only develop a mild febrile illness that resolves on its own.

“Not all cases will present as severe, because depending on the inoculum, there may be individuals with subclinical situations. But any food poisoning that occurs in endemic areas, where food is not properly controlled, and these street foods are associated with processes in jungle areas, raises the possibility that T cruzi is involved and should be considered as a differential diagnosis,» noted Dr. Chuit. “The treatment is highly effective, and people recover quickly.”

“The most important thing about oral transmission of Chagas is that someone infected in this way needs antiparasitic drugs immediately. We can cure them if we treat them immediately,” said Dr. Beatty, adding that treatment is sometimes delayed due to lack of access to appropriate antiparasitic drugs. “Here in the United States and in Latin America, it is quite common for healthcare professionals not to understand the differences between vector, vertical, and oral transmission. By not treating these patients, they become ill quickly.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Chuit declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Thanks to decades of successful vector control strategies, vector-borne transmission of Chagas disease has significantly decreased in many regions. Oral ingestion of Trypanosoma cruzi through contaminated food and beverages, however, is increasing. Unlike vector transmission, oral transmission of Chagas disease entails high lethality in pediatric and adult populations.

“The oral transmission of Chagas disease is becoming a much more recognized route, and it is crucial to understand that people can die from this type of transmission,” Norman L. Beatty, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases and global medicine at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville, Florida, told this news organization. Dr. Beatty is the lead author of a recent article on the subject.

In regions where the parasite circulates in the environment, people are consuming foods, fruit juices, and possibly wild animal meat that may be contaminated. “As we experience changes in our environment and in the way we consume food, it is crucial to consider how food preparation is carried out in areas where T cruzi transmission occurs in the environment,” said Dr. Beatty. “And as organic farming methods without insecticides become increasingly common, more research is needed in these areas, both in Latin America and in the United States, to understand if oral transmission of T cruzi is occurring.”

In the Amazon basin, foodborne transmission is already the leading cause of acute Chagas disease. It has been described in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, and Venezuela.

Dr. Beatty’s colleagues recently treated a Brazilian patient at the hospital in Florida. “He came to our hospital very ill, with acute myocarditis after consuming contaminated açaí.” Clarifying that there is widespread awareness about oral transmission in Brazil, he stated, “We are concerned that it may not be recognized in other areas of Latin America.”

Mexico and regions of Central America have little to no information on oral transmission, but it is likely occurring, and cases may be going undetected in the region, said Dr. Beatty.

He investigated the issue in Colombia as part of an international collaboration involving the University of Antioquia, aiming to find ways to mitigate oral transmission and create a model that can be used throughout Latin America and the United States. For the Colombia study, they reviewed all cases reported to the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, and oral transmission turned out to be more common than the research group expected. “Still, I imagine that in certain areas with limited resources…there are many more cases that are not being reported.

“A myth I would like to dispel is that Chagas disease is not being transmitted in the United States,” Dr. Beatty added. He mentioned that at least 30 American states have vectors, and in Florida, it was documented that triatomines invaded homes and bit residents. In addition, 30% of these insects are infected with T cruzi. Research is underway to determine whether Floridians are becoming infected and if they are also at risk of contracting Chagas disease orally, said Dr. Beatty. “In the United States, we know very little about how many people are infected and what the infection routes are. Much more research is needed.”

Roberto Chuit, MD, PhD, a doctor in public health and an external consultant for the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), agreed that this route of food contamination, which occurs because of vector-borne parasites, was until recently masked or hidden by the predominance of vector presence. Just as it began to gain importance as other transmission routes were controlled, “it now has extremely high importance in the Americas, as does vertical transmission,” he said.

In 2023, more than 50 years after the first description of oral transmission, the PAHO expert meeting proposed to alert health services and the broader community about the severity and potential lethality of oral Chagas disease outbreaks to elicit immediate responses and mitigation measures. The body also proposed conducting studies to provide detailed information on the contamination source and the wild vectors present in oral transmission foci.
 

Unique Clinical Manifestations

The exacerbated signs and symptoms of oral infection (see sidebar) are attributed to the high parasite loads in contaminated food and beverages. A single crushed triatomine along with a food or beverage harboring T cruzi can contain an estimated 600,000 metacyclic trypomastigotes, compared with 3000-4000 per µL when infection occurs by triatomine fecal matter. The robust systemic immune response observed in patients with acute oral Chagas disease is thought to result from more efficient transmission after penetration through the oral, pharyngeal, and gastric mucosae.
 

Seven Things to Know About Orally Transmitted Chagas Disease

1. It presents with exacerbated symptoms and rapid disease progression in immunocompetent individuals. This presentation is not common in vector-borne, congenital, or transfusion-related transmission. It can cause fulminant myocarditis and heart failure, meningoencephalitis, or potentially fatal shock due to parasitemia.

2. Most patients (71%-100%) with acute oral Chagas present with fever.

3. Electrocardiographic abnormalities, specifically ventricular depolarization alterations and pericardial involvement, are observed in most patients.

4. Facial edema, which typically affects the entire face and parts of the lips, is present in 57%-100% of patients with acute oral Chagas disease. In those with acute symptoms from vector transmission, unilateral periorbital swelling (Romaña’s sign) is more common.

5. Other notable systemic symptoms include edema of the lower extremities, myalgia, generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal discomfort, dyspnea, vomiting, diarrhea, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, headache, chest pain, cutaneous erythematous rash, jaundice, arthralgia, epistaxis, hematemesis, melena, and palpitations.

6. The incubation period after oral ingestion of products contaminated with Trypanosoma cruzi is approximately 3-22 days, in contrast to 4-15 days for vector-borne transmission and 8-160 days for transfusion and transplant-related transmission.

7. Patients need antiparasitic drugs immediately.
 

Thinking Epidemiologically

Dr. Chuit recalled that suspicion of food contamination should be based on epidemiology, especially in outbreaks affecting several people and in regions where Chagas vectors have been described. Sometimes, however, a single careless tourist consumes contaminated products.

“The difficulty is that many times it is not considered, and if it is not considered, the search for the parasite is not requested,” said Dr. Chuit. He added that it is common for the professional to consider Chagas disease only if viral and bacterial isolation tests are negative. Clinicians sometimes consider Chagas disease because the patient has not responded to regular treatments for other causes, such as antibiotics and hydration.

Epidemiology is important, especially when Chagas disease is diagnosed in groups or a family, because they are usually not isolated cases but outbreaks of 3-40 cases, according to Dr. Chuit. “Under these conditions, it must be quickly considered…that this parasite may be involved.”

One of the difficulties is that the source of these oral transmissions is not recognized most of the time. In general, the sources are usually foods that are more likely to be contaminated by insects or insect feces, such as orange juice or sugarcane. But in fact, any food or beverage left unattended could be contaminated by vectors or possible secretions from infected marsupial odoriferous glands.

An analysis of 32 outbreaks from 1965 to 2022 showed that the main foods involved in oral transmission were homemade fruit juices. But different vector species were identified, and the reservoirs were mainly dogs, rodents, and large American opossums (Didelphis).

The largest oral Chagas outbreak was linked to the consumption of contaminated guava juice in a primary school in Caracas, Venezuela. Nonindustrially produced açaí is a common source of orally acquired Chagas disease in Brazil. In Colombia, Chagas disease has been associated with the consumption of palm wine, sugar cane, and tangerine juice. Other oral transmission routes include consuming meat from wild animals and ingesting blood from infected armadillos, which is related to a traditional medicine practice.
 

Deadly Yet Easily Treatable

In the outbreak of 119 confirmed and suspected cases in Venezuela, 20.3% required hospitalization, and a 5-year-old child died of acute myocarditis. These percentages differ from those reported in vector transmission, which is asymptomatic in the acute phase for 95%-99% of cases or will only develop a mild febrile illness that resolves on its own.

“Not all cases will present as severe, because depending on the inoculum, there may be individuals with subclinical situations. But any food poisoning that occurs in endemic areas, where food is not properly controlled, and these street foods are associated with processes in jungle areas, raises the possibility that T cruzi is involved and should be considered as a differential diagnosis,» noted Dr. Chuit. “The treatment is highly effective, and people recover quickly.”

“The most important thing about oral transmission of Chagas is that someone infected in this way needs antiparasitic drugs immediately. We can cure them if we treat them immediately,” said Dr. Beatty, adding that treatment is sometimes delayed due to lack of access to appropriate antiparasitic drugs. “Here in the United States and in Latin America, it is quite common for healthcare professionals not to understand the differences between vector, vertical, and oral transmission. By not treating these patients, they become ill quickly.”

Dr. Beatty and Dr. Chuit declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified six blood biomarkers tied to changes in arterial inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers selected 24 candidate blood biomarkers previously associated with both RA and systemic inflammation.
• They measured biomarkers in 109 patients in the , which tested whether different treatments for RA reduced arterial inflammation.
• Along with biomarkers, they measured arterial inflammation via [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Baseline levels of the biomarkers serum amyloid A, C-reactive protein, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1, adiponectin, YKL-4, and osteoprotegerin were associated with significant changes in arterial inflammation on FDG-PET/CT scans.
• Adding these biomarkers to predictive models improved the adjusted R2 from 0.20 to 0.32 (likelihood ratio test, P = .0005).
• Researchers plan to validate these associations in a larger, external patient cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical applications.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Daniel Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published on February 28 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by a National Institutes of Health grant as well as the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium. Several authors reported salary support or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified six blood biomarkers tied to changes in arterial inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers selected 24 candidate blood biomarkers previously associated with both RA and systemic inflammation.
• They measured biomarkers in 109 patients in the , which tested whether different treatments for RA reduced arterial inflammation.
• Along with biomarkers, they measured arterial inflammation via [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Baseline levels of the biomarkers serum amyloid A, C-reactive protein, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1, adiponectin, YKL-4, and osteoprotegerin were associated with significant changes in arterial inflammation on FDG-PET/CT scans.
• Adding these biomarkers to predictive models improved the adjusted R2 from 0.20 to 0.32 (likelihood ratio test, P = .0005).
• Researchers plan to validate these associations in a larger, external patient cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical applications.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Daniel Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published on February 28 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by a National Institutes of Health grant as well as the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium. Several authors reported salary support or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers have identified six blood biomarkers tied to changes in arterial inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers selected 24 candidate blood biomarkers previously associated with both RA and systemic inflammation.
• They measured biomarkers in 109 patients in the , which tested whether different treatments for RA reduced arterial inflammation.
• Along with biomarkers, they measured arterial inflammation via [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Baseline levels of the biomarkers serum amyloid A, C-reactive protein, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1, adiponectin, YKL-4, and osteoprotegerin were associated with significant changes in arterial inflammation on FDG-PET/CT scans.
• Adding these biomarkers to predictive models improved the adjusted R2 from 0.20 to 0.32 (likelihood ratio test, P = .0005).
• Researchers plan to validate these associations in a larger, external patient cohort.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical applications.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Daniel Solomon, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published on February 28 in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was funded by a National Institutes of Health grant as well as the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium. Several authors reported salary support or consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the removal of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from food packaging.

Issued on February 28, 2024, “this means the major source of dietary exposure to PFAS from food packaging like fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, take-out paperboard containers, and pet food bags is being eliminated,” the FDA said in a statement.

In 2020, the FDA had secured commitments from manufacturers to stop selling products containing PFAS used in the food packaging for grease-proofing. “Today’s announcement marks the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments,” according to the agency.

PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals also called “forever chemicals” are widely used in consumer and industrial products. People may be exposed via contaminated food packaging (although perhaps no longer in the United States) or occupationally. Studies have found that some PFAS disrupt hormones including estrogen and testosterone, whereas others may impair thyroid function.
 

Endocrine Society Report Sounds the Alarm About PFAS and Others

The FDA’s announcement came just 2 days after the Endocrine Society issued a new alarm about the human health dangers from environmental EDCs including PFAS in a report covering the latest science.

“Endocrine disrupting chemicals” are individual substances or mixtures that can interfere with natural hormonal function, leading to disease or even death. Many are ubiquitous in the modern environment and contribute to a wide range of human diseases.

The new report Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Threats to Human Health was issued jointly with the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), a global advocacy organization. It’s an update to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 report, providing new data on the endocrine-disrupting substances previously covered and adding four EDCs not discussed in that document: Pesticides, plastics, PFAS, and children’s products containing arsenic.

At a briefing held during the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi, Kenya, last week, the new report’s lead author Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas at Austin, noted, “A well-established body of scientific research indicates that endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are part of our daily lives are making us more susceptible to reproductive disorders, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other serious health conditions.”

Added Dr. Gore, who is also a member of the Endocrine Society’s Board of Directors, “These chemicals pose particularly serious risks to pregnant women and children. Now is the time for the UN Environment Assembly and other global policymakers to take action to address this threat to public health.”

While the science has been emerging rapidly, global and national chemical control policies haven’t kept up, the authors said. Of particular concern is that EDCs behave differently from other chemicals in many ways, including that even very low-dose exposures can pose health threats, but policies thus far haven’t dealt with that aspect.

Moreover, “the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. This means there may be no safe dose for exposure to EDCs,” according to the report.

Exposures can come from household products, including furniture, toys, and food packages, as well as electronics building materials and cosmetics. These chemicals are also in the outdoor environment, via pesticides, air pollution, and industrial waste.

“IPEN and the Endocrine Society call for chemical regulations based on the most modern scientific understanding of how hormones act and how EDCs can perturb these actions. We work to educate policy makers in global, regional, and national government assemblies and help ensure that regulations correlate with current scientific understanding,” they said in the report.
 

New Data on Four Classes of EDCs

Chapters of the report summarized the latest information about the science of EDCs and their links to endocrine disease and real-world exposure. It included a special section about “EDCs throughout the plastics life cycle” and a summary of the links between EDCs and climate change.

The report reviewed three pesticides, including the world’s most heavily applied herbicide, glycophosphate. Exposures can occur directly from the air, water, dust, and food residues. Recent data linked glycophosphate to adverse reproductive health outcomes.

Two toxic plastic chemicals, phthalates and bisphenols, are present in personal care products, among others. Emerging evidence links them with impaired neurodevelopment, leading to impaired cognitive function, learning, attention, and impulsivity.

Arsenic has long been linked to human health conditions including cancer, but more recent evidence finds it can disrupt multiple endocrine systems and lead to metabolic conditions including diabetes, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular and neurocognitive conditions.

The special section about plastics noted that they are made from fossil fuels and chemicals, including many toxic substances that are known or suspected EDCs. People who live near plastic production facilities or waste dumps may be at greatest risk, but anyone can be exposed using any plastic product. Plastic waste disposal is increasingly problematic and often foisted on lower- and middle-income countries.
 

‘Additional Education and Awareness-Raising Among Stakeholders Remain Necessary’

Policies aimed at reducing human health risks from EDCs have included the 2022 Plastics Treaty, a resolution adopted by 175 countries at the United Nations Environmental Assembly that “may be a significant step toward global control of plastics and elimination of threats from exposures to EDCs in plastics,” the report said.

The authors added, “While significant progress has been made in recent years connecting scientific advances on EDCs with health-protective policies, additional education and awareness-raising among stakeholders remain necessary to achieve a safer and more sustainable environment that minimizes exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

The document was produced with financial contributions from the Government of Sweden, the Tides Foundation, Passport Foundation, and other donors.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A prognostic tool may facilitate the early identification of older adults in the community who would benefit from palliative care in their final years, new research from Canada suggested.

The analysis of data from close to a quarter million community-dwelling older adults in Ontario with at least one interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) home care assessment showed that only half of those with an estimated survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one palliative home care visit before death.

“One of the challenges and a barrier to accessing palliative home care is the difficulty of predicting survival,” Amy Hsu, PhD, an investigator at the Bruyère Research Institute in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization. “Clinicians are good at prognosticating when a patient might be entering their last 3-6 weeks of life, but they have a harder time predicting if someone will survive 6 months or longer.”

The team developed the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) to see whether access to predicted survival data could inform conversations about a patient’s status and palliative care needs.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Setting Care Goals

Researchers analyzed population health administrative data from Ontario involving home care clients who received at least one interRAI Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. The cohort included 247,377 adults (62% women) with a mean age of 80.1 years at the time of assessment. Comorbidities, including congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, as well as symptoms of health instability, were more prevalent among those at higher risk of dying.

The team used an updated, validated version of RESPECT to predict survival.

Only 2.6% of home care clients had received a clinician diagnosis of an end-stage disease, which was more prevalent among those at highest mortality risk (77.9%). Most clients (74.5%) required extensive assistance in performing instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs, score ≤ 4), and half (50.3%) were less able to perform ADLs in the last 3 months of life.

Within the cohort, 75% of patients with a predicted median survival of fewer than 3 months, 55.4% of those with a predicted median survival between 3 and 6 months, and 40.7% of those with a predicted median survival between 6 and 12 months died within 6 months of the home care assessment.

Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least one nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. Less than a third (27.8%) received at least one palliative home care visit from a physician.

The proportion of those who received at least one nonphysician visit fell to 38.7% among those with a median survival of between 3 and 6 months and to 29.5% among those with a median survival of between 6 and 12 months.

Patients who received at least one palliative home care visit (from either physicians or nonphysician home care providers) within 6 months of an assessment had clinical characteristics similar to those who did not receive a visit. However, those who did not receive palliative home care were more likely to not have been identified by a clinician as being in their past 6 months of life.

“These results reinforce the role of clinicians in identifying older adults who may be in their last 6 months of life as an important component for the receipt of palliative home care and highlight the value of RESPECT in supplementing clinicians’ assessments of prognosis,” the authors wrote.

“Our goal is to use data and tools like RESPECT to help individuals living with a life-limiting illness have conversations about what their end-of-life care goals and wishes may be and discuss whether a referral to palliative care is appropriate or needed,” Dr. Hsu added. “Data about life expectancy could be helpful for framing these conversations.”

The researchers are working with partners in home, community care, and long-term care to implement RESPECT in their settings.
 

‘Valuable Tool’

Guohua Li, MD, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and anesthesiology at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, commented on the findings for this news organization. He noted that the study is “rigorously designed and meticulously analyzed. The findings are of high validity and population health significance.”

The findings are comparable with what is seen in the United States and Canada, he said, where about 50% of terminally ill patients die at home or in hospice. However, palliative care outside of North America “varies greatly, and in many developing countries, [it] is still in its infancy.”

As a mortality risk prediction algorithm, “RESPECT seems to perform reasonably well,” he said. “If incorporated into the electronic health record, it could be a valuable tool for clinicians to identify patients with less than 6 months of life expectancy and deliver palliative care to these patients. RESPECT appears to be particularly beneficial for home care patients without a clinically diagnosed terminal disease.”

That said, he added, “RESPECT should be viewed as a clinical decision support tool. It is no substitute for clinicians or clinical judgment. Based on the data presented in the paper, the algorithm tends to overestimate the short-term mortality risk for home care patients, therefore resulting in many false alarms.”

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Associated Medical Services. Dr. Hsu is an executive lead on the steering committee of the Ontario Centres for Learning, Research, and Innovation in Long-Term Care. Funding for the centers comes from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care and is partially administered by the Bruyère Research Institute. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emerging evidence suggests that oral health, often overlooked by clinicians, is closely connected with overall health — and this connection has important consequences for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). While most studies are observational and can’t prove cause and effect, the associations are robust enough for researchers to conclude that the connection is real.

Endocrinologists and other specialists, as well as primary care physicians, should ask about oral health, if not look in the mouth directly, experts say. “One of the most important things to ask people with diabetes is when their last dental visit was and if they have a follow-up,” said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The ADA advocates for attention to oral health through its 2024 standards of care.

Systemic Impact

“Periodontitis is a probable risk factor for various problems connected to the cardiovascular, pulmonary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, central nervous, and reproductive systems,” wrote the authors of a recent review on the effects of periodontitis on major organ systems. While not specific to the diabetes connection, the review pinpoints some of the latest evidence that “oral health affects overall health, and…dental health should never be considered a distinct, remote, and lower significant part of health.”

In line with this perspective, and looking specifically at T2D, a recent study of more than 17,000 patients with T2D participating in a screening program in Korea found that periodontitis and an increased number of teeth with cavities were independent risk factors for cerebral or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.17 and 1.67, respectively).

Dental disease and poor oral hygiene were also associated with an increased risk for heart failure among people with T2D in a large cohort study, and the authors suggested that managing oral health may prevent heart failure development.

A recent review suggested that periodontitis exacerbates and promotes the progression of chronic kidney disease, a disorder that affects 1 in 3 people with diabetes.

Studies also have shown that diabetes is associated with cognitive decline, and a review of oral health and dementia progression concluded, “collectively, experimental findings indicate that the connection between oral health and cognition cannot be underestimated.”

Bidirectional Effects

Research has shown that the association between periodontal disease and T2D is likely bidirectional, although there is little awareness of this two-way relationship among patients and providers.

A recent review of this bidirectional relationship focused on microvascular complications, oral microbiota, pro- and anti-inflammatory factors in T2D and periodontal disease and concluded that “these two diseases require specific/complementary therapeutic solutions when they occur in association, with new clinical trials and epidemiological research being necessary for better control of this interdependent pathogenic topic.”

Yet an Australian study showed that 54% of 241 participants in a survey never received any information regarding the bidirectional relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes and lacked understanding of the association.

What’s the Mechanism?

How does T2D affect the teeth and vice versa? “Basically, people with T2D have high blood sugar, and the sugar comes out in the saliva and that promotes bacterial growth in the mouth and plaque formation on the teeth and gum disease,” Samir Malkani, MD, clinical chief of endocrinology and diabetes at UMass Chan School of Medicine in Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

“Patients get gingivitis, they get periodontitis, and since the gums and the jaw are a single unit, if the gum disease gets very severe, then there’s loss of jawbone and the teeth could fall out,” he said. There’s also inflammation in the mouth, and “when you have generalized inflammation, it affects the whole body.”

Recent research in Europe suggested that “although the mechanisms behind these associations are partially unclear, poor oral health is probably sustaining systemic inflammation.” Common oral infections, periodontal disease, and cavities are associated with inflammatory metabolic profiles related to an increased risk for cardiometabolic diseases, and they predict future adverse changes in metabolic profiles, according to the authors.

Awareness, Accessibility, Collaboration

Despite the evidence, the connection between oral health and diabetes (any type) is not front of mind with clinicians or patients, Dr. Malkani said. He pointed to a systematic review that included 28 studies of close to 28,000 people in 14 countries. The review found that people with diabetes have “inadequate oral health knowledge, poor oral health attitudes, and fewer dental visits, [and] rarely receive oral health education and dental referrals from their care providers.”

Social determinants of health have a “huge impact” on whether people will develop T2D and its related complications, including poor oral health, according to the National Clinical Care Commission Report presented to the US Congress in 2022. The commission was charged with making recommendations for federal policies and programs that could more effectively prevent and control diabetes and its complications.

The commission “approached its charge through the lens of a socioecological and an expanded chronic care model,” the report authors wrote. “It was clear that diabetes in the US cannot simply be viewed as a medical or healthcare problem but also must be addressed as a societal problem that cuts across many sectors, including food, housing, commerce, transportation, and the environment.”

Diabetes also is associated with higher dental costs, another factor affecting an individual’s ability to obtain care.

A recent questionnaire-based study from Denmark found that people with T2D were more likely than those without diabetes to rate their oral health as poor, and that the risk for self-rated poor oral health increased with lower educational attainment. Highest educational attainment and disposable household income were indicators of a high socioeconomic position, and a lower likelihood of rating their oral health as poor, again pointing out inequities.

The authors concluded that “diabetes and dental care providers should engage in multidisciplinary collaboration across healthcare sectors to ensure coherent treatment and management of diabetes.”

But such collaborations are easier said than done. “One of the challenges is our fragmented health system, where oral health and medical care are separate,” Dr. Gabbay said.

For the most part, the two are separate, Dr. Malkani agreed. “When we’re dealing with most complications of diabetes, like involvement of the heart or eyes or kidneys, we can have interdisciplinary care — everyone is within the overall discipline of medicine, and if I refer to a colleague in ophthalmology or a cardiologist or a vascular surgeon, they can all be within the same network from an insurance point of view, as well.”

But for dental care, referrals are interprofessional, not interdisciplinary. “I have to make sure that the patient has a dentist because dentists are usually not part of medical networks, and if the patient doesn’t have dental insurance, then cost and access can be a challenge.”

A recent systematic review from Australia on interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative care found that more than a third of medical professionals were “ignorant” of the relationship between oral health and T2D. Furthermore, only 30% reported ever referring their patients for an oral health assessment. And there was little, if any, interprofessional collaborative care between medical and dental professionals while managing patients with T2D.

Treat the Teeth

“We always talk to our T2D patients about the importance of getting an eye exam, a foot exam, and a kidney test,” Dr. Malkani said. “But we also need to make sure that they’re going to the dentist. Normally, people get their teeth cleaned twice a year. But if you have diabetes and poor oral health, you might need to get your teeth cleaned every three months, and insurance often will pay for that.”

Furthermore, in keeping with the bidirectional connection, treating periodontitis can help glycemic control. The authors of a 2022 update of a Cochrane review on treating periodontitis for glycemic control wrote that they “doubled the number of included studies and participants” from the 2015 update to 35 studies randomizing 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. This “led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion.”

“We now have moderate‐certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment vs no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.”

“Dentists also have a responsibility,” Dr. Malkani added. “If they see someone with severe gum disease or cavities, especially at a younger age, they need to tell that person to get their blood sugar checked and make sure they don’t have T2D.”

In fact, a recent review found that complications of T2D such as xerostomia and periodontal problems adversely affect well-being, and that “dentists can play an essential role in the awareness of diabetic patients about these problems and improve their quality of life.”

Key Stats

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted these facts about diabetes and oral health:

• Adults aged 20 years or older with diabetes are 40% more likely to have untreated cavities than similar adults without diabetes.
• About 60% of US adults with diabetes had a medical visit in the past year but no dental visit.
• Expanding healthcare coverage for periodontal treatment among people with diabetes could save each person about $6000 (2019 US dollars) over their lifetimes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes lack functional dentition (have fewer than 20 teeth) 46% more often and have severe tooth loss (eight or fewer teeth) 56% more often than those without diabetes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes are more likely to report that they have a hard time eating because of dental problems.
• Annual dental expenditures for an adult with diabetes are $77 (2017 US dollars) higher than for an adult without diabetes. This cost translates to $1.9 billion for the United States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emerging evidence suggests that oral health, often overlooked by clinicians, is closely connected with overall health — and this connection has important consequences for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). While most studies are observational and can’t prove cause and effect, the associations are robust enough for researchers to conclude that the connection is real.

Endocrinologists and other specialists, as well as primary care physicians, should ask about oral health, if not look in the mouth directly, experts say. “One of the most important things to ask people with diabetes is when their last dental visit was and if they have a follow-up,” said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The ADA advocates for attention to oral health through its 2024 standards of care.

Systemic Impact

“Periodontitis is a probable risk factor for various problems connected to the cardiovascular, pulmonary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, central nervous, and reproductive systems,” wrote the authors of a recent review on the effects of periodontitis on major organ systems. While not specific to the diabetes connection, the review pinpoints some of the latest evidence that “oral health affects overall health, and…dental health should never be considered a distinct, remote, and lower significant part of health.”

In line with this perspective, and looking specifically at T2D, a recent study of more than 17,000 patients with T2D participating in a screening program in Korea found that periodontitis and an increased number of teeth with cavities were independent risk factors for cerebral or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.17 and 1.67, respectively).

Dental disease and poor oral hygiene were also associated with an increased risk for heart failure among people with T2D in a large cohort study, and the authors suggested that managing oral health may prevent heart failure development.

A recent review suggested that periodontitis exacerbates and promotes the progression of chronic kidney disease, a disorder that affects 1 in 3 people with diabetes.

Studies also have shown that diabetes is associated with cognitive decline, and a review of oral health and dementia progression concluded, “collectively, experimental findings indicate that the connection between oral health and cognition cannot be underestimated.”

Bidirectional Effects

Research has shown that the association between periodontal disease and T2D is likely bidirectional, although there is little awareness of this two-way relationship among patients and providers.

A recent review of this bidirectional relationship focused on microvascular complications, oral microbiota, pro- and anti-inflammatory factors in T2D and periodontal disease and concluded that “these two diseases require specific/complementary therapeutic solutions when they occur in association, with new clinical trials and epidemiological research being necessary for better control of this interdependent pathogenic topic.”

Yet an Australian study showed that 54% of 241 participants in a survey never received any information regarding the bidirectional relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes and lacked understanding of the association.

What’s the Mechanism?

How does T2D affect the teeth and vice versa? “Basically, people with T2D have high blood sugar, and the sugar comes out in the saliva and that promotes bacterial growth in the mouth and plaque formation on the teeth and gum disease,” Samir Malkani, MD, clinical chief of endocrinology and diabetes at UMass Chan School of Medicine in Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

“Patients get gingivitis, they get periodontitis, and since the gums and the jaw are a single unit, if the gum disease gets very severe, then there’s loss of jawbone and the teeth could fall out,” he said. There’s also inflammation in the mouth, and “when you have generalized inflammation, it affects the whole body.”

Recent research in Europe suggested that “although the mechanisms behind these associations are partially unclear, poor oral health is probably sustaining systemic inflammation.” Common oral infections, periodontal disease, and cavities are associated with inflammatory metabolic profiles related to an increased risk for cardiometabolic diseases, and they predict future adverse changes in metabolic profiles, according to the authors.

Awareness, Accessibility, Collaboration

Despite the evidence, the connection between oral health and diabetes (any type) is not front of mind with clinicians or patients, Dr. Malkani said. He pointed to a systematic review that included 28 studies of close to 28,000 people in 14 countries. The review found that people with diabetes have “inadequate oral health knowledge, poor oral health attitudes, and fewer dental visits, [and] rarely receive oral health education and dental referrals from their care providers.”

Social determinants of health have a “huge impact” on whether people will develop T2D and its related complications, including poor oral health, according to the National Clinical Care Commission Report presented to the US Congress in 2022. The commission was charged with making recommendations for federal policies and programs that could more effectively prevent and control diabetes and its complications.

The commission “approached its charge through the lens of a socioecological and an expanded chronic care model,” the report authors wrote. “It was clear that diabetes in the US cannot simply be viewed as a medical or healthcare problem but also must be addressed as a societal problem that cuts across many sectors, including food, housing, commerce, transportation, and the environment.”

Diabetes also is associated with higher dental costs, another factor affecting an individual’s ability to obtain care.

A recent questionnaire-based study from Denmark found that people with T2D were more likely than those without diabetes to rate their oral health as poor, and that the risk for self-rated poor oral health increased with lower educational attainment. Highest educational attainment and disposable household income were indicators of a high socioeconomic position, and a lower likelihood of rating their oral health as poor, again pointing out inequities.

The authors concluded that “diabetes and dental care providers should engage in multidisciplinary collaboration across healthcare sectors to ensure coherent treatment and management of diabetes.”

But such collaborations are easier said than done. “One of the challenges is our fragmented health system, where oral health and medical care are separate,” Dr. Gabbay said.

For the most part, the two are separate, Dr. Malkani agreed. “When we’re dealing with most complications of diabetes, like involvement of the heart or eyes or kidneys, we can have interdisciplinary care — everyone is within the overall discipline of medicine, and if I refer to a colleague in ophthalmology or a cardiologist or a vascular surgeon, they can all be within the same network from an insurance point of view, as well.”

But for dental care, referrals are interprofessional, not interdisciplinary. “I have to make sure that the patient has a dentist because dentists are usually not part of medical networks, and if the patient doesn’t have dental insurance, then cost and access can be a challenge.”

A recent systematic review from Australia on interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative care found that more than a third of medical professionals were “ignorant” of the relationship between oral health and T2D. Furthermore, only 30% reported ever referring their patients for an oral health assessment. And there was little, if any, interprofessional collaborative care between medical and dental professionals while managing patients with T2D.

Treat the Teeth

“We always talk to our T2D patients about the importance of getting an eye exam, a foot exam, and a kidney test,” Dr. Malkani said. “But we also need to make sure that they’re going to the dentist. Normally, people get their teeth cleaned twice a year. But if you have diabetes and poor oral health, you might need to get your teeth cleaned every three months, and insurance often will pay for that.”

Furthermore, in keeping with the bidirectional connection, treating periodontitis can help glycemic control. The authors of a 2022 update of a Cochrane review on treating periodontitis for glycemic control wrote that they “doubled the number of included studies and participants” from the 2015 update to 35 studies randomizing 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. This “led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion.”

“We now have moderate‐certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment vs no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.”

“Dentists also have a responsibility,” Dr. Malkani added. “If they see someone with severe gum disease or cavities, especially at a younger age, they need to tell that person to get their blood sugar checked and make sure they don’t have T2D.”

In fact, a recent review found that complications of T2D such as xerostomia and periodontal problems adversely affect well-being, and that “dentists can play an essential role in the awareness of diabetic patients about these problems and improve their quality of life.”

Key Stats

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted these facts about diabetes and oral health:

• Adults aged 20 years or older with diabetes are 40% more likely to have untreated cavities than similar adults without diabetes.
• About 60% of US adults with diabetes had a medical visit in the past year but no dental visit.
• Expanding healthcare coverage for periodontal treatment among people with diabetes could save each person about $6000 (2019 US dollars) over their lifetimes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes lack functional dentition (have fewer than 20 teeth) 46% more often and have severe tooth loss (eight or fewer teeth) 56% more often than those without diabetes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes are more likely to report that they have a hard time eating because of dental problems.
• Annual dental expenditures for an adult with diabetes are $77 (2017 US dollars) higher than for an adult without diabetes. This cost translates to $1.9 billion for the United States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emerging evidence suggests that oral health, often overlooked by clinicians, is closely connected with overall health — and this connection has important consequences for individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). While most studies are observational and can’t prove cause and effect, the associations are robust enough for researchers to conclude that the connection is real.

Endocrinologists and other specialists, as well as primary care physicians, should ask about oral health, if not look in the mouth directly, experts say. “One of the most important things to ask people with diabetes is when their last dental visit was and if they have a follow-up,” said Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association (ADA). The ADA advocates for attention to oral health through its 2024 standards of care.

Systemic Impact

“Periodontitis is a probable risk factor for various problems connected to the cardiovascular, pulmonary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, central nervous, and reproductive systems,” wrote the authors of a recent review on the effects of periodontitis on major organ systems. While not specific to the diabetes connection, the review pinpoints some of the latest evidence that “oral health affects overall health, and…dental health should never be considered a distinct, remote, and lower significant part of health.”

In line with this perspective, and looking specifically at T2D, a recent study of more than 17,000 patients with T2D participating in a screening program in Korea found that periodontitis and an increased number of teeth with cavities were independent risk factors for cerebral or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratios, 1.17 and 1.67, respectively).

Dental disease and poor oral hygiene were also associated with an increased risk for heart failure among people with T2D in a large cohort study, and the authors suggested that managing oral health may prevent heart failure development.

A recent review suggested that periodontitis exacerbates and promotes the progression of chronic kidney disease, a disorder that affects 1 in 3 people with diabetes.

Studies also have shown that diabetes is associated with cognitive decline, and a review of oral health and dementia progression concluded, “collectively, experimental findings indicate that the connection between oral health and cognition cannot be underestimated.”

Bidirectional Effects

Research has shown that the association between periodontal disease and T2D is likely bidirectional, although there is little awareness of this two-way relationship among patients and providers.

A recent review of this bidirectional relationship focused on microvascular complications, oral microbiota, pro- and anti-inflammatory factors in T2D and periodontal disease and concluded that “these two diseases require specific/complementary therapeutic solutions when they occur in association, with new clinical trials and epidemiological research being necessary for better control of this interdependent pathogenic topic.”

Yet an Australian study showed that 54% of 241 participants in a survey never received any information regarding the bidirectional relationship between periodontal disease and diabetes and lacked understanding of the association.

What’s the Mechanism?

How does T2D affect the teeth and vice versa? “Basically, people with T2D have high blood sugar, and the sugar comes out in the saliva and that promotes bacterial growth in the mouth and plaque formation on the teeth and gum disease,” Samir Malkani, MD, clinical chief of endocrinology and diabetes at UMass Chan School of Medicine in Worcester, Massachusetts, told this news organization.

“Patients get gingivitis, they get periodontitis, and since the gums and the jaw are a single unit, if the gum disease gets very severe, then there’s loss of jawbone and the teeth could fall out,” he said. There’s also inflammation in the mouth, and “when you have generalized inflammation, it affects the whole body.”

Recent research in Europe suggested that “although the mechanisms behind these associations are partially unclear, poor oral health is probably sustaining systemic inflammation.” Common oral infections, periodontal disease, and cavities are associated with inflammatory metabolic profiles related to an increased risk for cardiometabolic diseases, and they predict future adverse changes in metabolic profiles, according to the authors.

Awareness, Accessibility, Collaboration

Despite the evidence, the connection between oral health and diabetes (any type) is not front of mind with clinicians or patients, Dr. Malkani said. He pointed to a systematic review that included 28 studies of close to 28,000 people in 14 countries. The review found that people with diabetes have “inadequate oral health knowledge, poor oral health attitudes, and fewer dental visits, [and] rarely receive oral health education and dental referrals from their care providers.”

Social determinants of health have a “huge impact” on whether people will develop T2D and its related complications, including poor oral health, according to the National Clinical Care Commission Report presented to the US Congress in 2022. The commission was charged with making recommendations for federal policies and programs that could more effectively prevent and control diabetes and its complications.

The commission “approached its charge through the lens of a socioecological and an expanded chronic care model,” the report authors wrote. “It was clear that diabetes in the US cannot simply be viewed as a medical or healthcare problem but also must be addressed as a societal problem that cuts across many sectors, including food, housing, commerce, transportation, and the environment.”

Diabetes also is associated with higher dental costs, another factor affecting an individual’s ability to obtain care.

A recent questionnaire-based study from Denmark found that people with T2D were more likely than those without diabetes to rate their oral health as poor, and that the risk for self-rated poor oral health increased with lower educational attainment. Highest educational attainment and disposable household income were indicators of a high socioeconomic position, and a lower likelihood of rating their oral health as poor, again pointing out inequities.

The authors concluded that “diabetes and dental care providers should engage in multidisciplinary collaboration across healthcare sectors to ensure coherent treatment and management of diabetes.”

But such collaborations are easier said than done. “One of the challenges is our fragmented health system, where oral health and medical care are separate,” Dr. Gabbay said.

For the most part, the two are separate, Dr. Malkani agreed. “When we’re dealing with most complications of diabetes, like involvement of the heart or eyes or kidneys, we can have interdisciplinary care — everyone is within the overall discipline of medicine, and if I refer to a colleague in ophthalmology or a cardiologist or a vascular surgeon, they can all be within the same network from an insurance point of view, as well.”

But for dental care, referrals are interprofessional, not interdisciplinary. “I have to make sure that the patient has a dentist because dentists are usually not part of medical networks, and if the patient doesn’t have dental insurance, then cost and access can be a challenge.”

A recent systematic review from Australia on interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative care found that more than a third of medical professionals were “ignorant” of the relationship between oral health and T2D. Furthermore, only 30% reported ever referring their patients for an oral health assessment. And there was little, if any, interprofessional collaborative care between medical and dental professionals while managing patients with T2D.

Treat the Teeth

“We always talk to our T2D patients about the importance of getting an eye exam, a foot exam, and a kidney test,” Dr. Malkani said. “But we also need to make sure that they’re going to the dentist. Normally, people get their teeth cleaned twice a year. But if you have diabetes and poor oral health, you might need to get your teeth cleaned every three months, and insurance often will pay for that.”

Furthermore, in keeping with the bidirectional connection, treating periodontitis can help glycemic control. The authors of a 2022 update of a Cochrane review on treating periodontitis for glycemic control wrote that they “doubled the number of included studies and participants” from the 2015 update to 35 studies randomizing 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. This “led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion.”

“We now have moderate‐certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment vs no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.”

“Dentists also have a responsibility,” Dr. Malkani added. “If they see someone with severe gum disease or cavities, especially at a younger age, they need to tell that person to get their blood sugar checked and make sure they don’t have T2D.”

In fact, a recent review found that complications of T2D such as xerostomia and periodontal problems adversely affect well-being, and that “dentists can play an essential role in the awareness of diabetic patients about these problems and improve their quality of life.”

Key Stats

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted these facts about diabetes and oral health:

• Adults aged 20 years or older with diabetes are 40% more likely to have untreated cavities than similar adults without diabetes.
• About 60% of US adults with diabetes had a medical visit in the past year but no dental visit.
• Expanding healthcare coverage for periodontal treatment among people with diabetes could save each person about $6000 (2019 US dollars) over their lifetimes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes lack functional dentition (have fewer than 20 teeth) 46% more often and have severe tooth loss (eight or fewer teeth) 56% more often than those without diabetes.
• Adults aged 50 years or older with diabetes are more likely to report that they have a hard time eating because of dental problems.
• Annual dental expenditures for an adult with diabetes are $77 (2017 US dollars) higher than for an adult without diabetes. This cost translates to $1.9 billion for the United States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians’ negative online reviews — fair or unfair — can scare away new patients. But practices don’t have to sit idly by and watch their revenue shrink.

Increasingly, they’re turning to apps and automated systems like DearDoc, Rater8, and LoyalHealth that ask satisfied patients to post reviews. The goal: To counteract the effect of negative reviews.

Not all of these systems are effective, according to physicians who’ve used them. Asking patients for reviews is still not fully accepted, either. Still, some apps have proved their worth, doctors say.

Karen Horton, MD, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, California, has used an automated system for 3 years. Even though reviews from plastic surgery patients can be difficult to get, Dr. Horton said, she has accumulated 535, with an average rating of just under 5 stars on a 1- to 5-star scale.

Dr. Horton, who speaks on the topic, said unfair negative reviews are a problem that needs addressing.

“A bad review sometimes says more about the patient than the provider,” she said. “Patients can use online reviews to vent about some perceived misgiving.”

Automated requests can address this problem. “The best way to deal with negative reviews is to ask average patients to post reviews,” she said. “These patients are more likely to be positive, but they wouldn’t leave a review unless asked.”

How Automated Systems Work

A variety of vendors provide an automated review request process to practices and hospitals. DearDoc, Loyal Health, Rater8, and Simple Interact work with healthcare providers, while Birdeye, Reputation, and Thrive Management work with all businesses.

Typically, these vendors access the practice’s electronic health record to get patients’ contact information and the daily appointment schedule to know which patients to contact. Patients are contacted after their appointment and are given the opportunity to go directly to a review site and post.

Inviting patients digitally rather than in person may seem unwelcoming, but many people prefer it, said Fred Horton, president of AMGA consulting in Alexandria, Virginia, a subsidiary of the American Medical Group Association. (He is not related to Karen Horton.)

“People tend to be more honest and detailed when responding to an automated message than to a person,” Mr. Horton told this news organization. “And younger patients actually prefer digital communications.”

But Mike Coppola, vice president of AMGA consulting, isn’t keen about automation.

He said practices can instead assign staff to ask patients to post reviews or an office can use signage displaying a Quick Response (QR) code, a two-dimensional matrix often used in restaurants to access a menu. Patients who put their smartphone cameras over the code are taken directly to a review site.

Still, staff would still need to help each patient access the site to be as effective as automation, and a QR invitation may be ignored. Pat Pazmino, MD, a plastic surgeon in Miami, Florida, told this news organization his office displays QR codes for reviews, but “I’m not sure many patients really use them.”

Some automated systems can go too far. Dr. Pazmino said a vendor he hired several years ago contacted “every patient who had ever called my office. A lot of them were annoyed.”

He said the service generated only 20 or 30 reviews, and some were negative. He did not like that he was soliciting patients to make negative reviews. He canceled the service.

What Is the Cost and Return on Investment?

“Our system makes it as easy as possible for patients to place reviews,” said Ravi Kalidindi, CEO of Simple Interact, a Dallas-based vendor that markets to doctors.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact charges $95-$145 per provider per month, depending on how the tool is used. For each dollar in cost, the practice typically earns $10 in extra revenue, he said.

Orrin Franko, MD, a hand surgeon in San Leandro, California, started using an automated patient review tool several years ago. He said that after installation received 10 reviews per month, all 5-star. “Now we have well over 700 reviews that generate close to $500,000 a year for our three-doctor practice,” he said.

Karen Horton reports more modest results. One new review comes in every 3-4 weeks. “Getting online reviews is a challenge for plastic surgeons,” he said. “Most patients are very private about having work done.”

Dr. Kalidindi reported that very few patients respond to Simple Interact’s invitation, but the numbers add up. “Typically, 3 of 100 patients contacted will ultimately post a positive review,” he said. “That means that a practice that sees 600 patients a month could get 18 positive reviews a month.”

Practices can also build their own systems and avoid vendors’ monthly fees. Dr. Franko built his own system, while Dr. Horton contracted with SILVR Agency, a digital marketing company in Solana Beach, California, to build hers for a one-time cost of about $3000.

Why Should Doctors Care About Online Reviews?

Online review sites for doctors include HealthGrades, RateMDs, Realself, Vitals, WebMD, and Zocdoc. (Medscape Medical News is part of WebMD.) Potential patients also consult general review sites like Facebook, Google My Business, and Yelp.

Consumers tend to prefer doctors who have many reviews, but most doctors get very few. One survey found that the average doctor has only seven online reviews, while competitors may have hundreds.

Having too few reviews also means that just one or two negative reviews can produce a poor average rating. It’s virtually impossible to remove negative reviews, and they can have a big impact. A 1-star rating reduces consumers’ clicks by 11%, according to Brightlocal, a company that surveys consumers’ use of online ratings.

Online reviews also influence Google searches, even when consumers never access a review site, said Lee Rensch, product director at Loyal Health, an Atlanta, Georgia–based vendor that works exclusively with hospitals.

By far the most common way to find a doctor is to use Google to search for doctors “near me,” Mr. Rensch told this news organization. The Google search brings up a ranked list of doctors, based partly on each doctor’s ratings on review sites.

Mr. Rensch said 15%-20% of Google’s ranking involves the number of reviews the doctor has, the average star rating, and the newness of the reviews. Other factors include whether the provider has responded to reviews and the description of the practice, he said.

How many people use the internet to find doctors? One survey found that 72% of healthcare consumers do so. Furthermore, healthcare ranks second in the most common use of reviews, after service businesses and before restaurants, according to a Brightlocal survey.

Is it OK to Ask for Reviews?

Dr. Franko said asking for reviews is still not fully accepted. “There remains a spectrum of opinions and emotions regarding the appropriateness of ‘soliciting’ online reviews from patients,” he said.

Dr. Horton said review sites are also divided. “Google encourages businesses to remind customers to leave reviews, but Yelp discourages it,” she said. “It wants reviews to be organic and spontaneous.”

“I don’t think this is a problem,” said E. Scot Davis, a practice management consultant in Little Rock, Arkansas, and a board member of the Large Urology Group Practice Association. “Not enough people leave positive reviews, so it’s a way of balancing out the impact of a few people who make negative reviews.”

Indeed, other businesses routinely ask for online reviews and customers are often willing to oblige. Brightlocal reported that in 2022, 80% of consumers said they were prompted by local businesses to leave a review and 65% did so.

Some physicians may wonder whether it’s ethical to limit requests for reviews to patients who had positive experiences. Some vendors first ask patients about their experiences and then invite only those with positive ones to post.

Dr. Kalidindi said Simple Interact asks patients about their experiences as a way to help practices improve their services. He said patients’ experiences aren’t normally used to cull out dissatisfied patients unless the customer asks for it.

Loyal Health’s tool does not ask patients about their experiences, according to Loyal Health President Brian Gresh. He told this news organization he is opposed to culling negative reviewers and said it’s against Google policy.

Mr. Coppola at AMGA Consulting also opposes the practice. “It’s misleading not to ask people who had a bad experience,” he said. “Besides, if you only have glowing reviews, consumers would be suspicious.”

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that practices shouldn’t pay for online reviews. Dr. Horton said she believes this would be considered unprofessional conduct by the Medical Board of California.

Conclusion

Automated systems have helped practices attain more and better online reviews, boosting their revenue. Although some frown on the idea of prompting patients to leave reviews, others say it is necessary because some negative online reviews can be unfair and harm practices.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The MightySat Medical, an over-the-counter medical fingertip pulse oximeter, has received clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use without a prescription, according to a press release from manufacturer Masimo.

The device is the first medical fingertip pulse oximeter available directly to consumers without a prescription that includes the same technology used by many hospitals, according to the company.

According to the FDA, home pulse oximeters are currently generally of two classes: hospital-grade prescription devices which have been vetted for accuracy through clinical trials, and over-the-counter devices which are sold direct to consumers but often estimate oxygen saturation. FDA communication on pulse oximeter accuracy states "OTC oximeters that are sold as either general wellness or sporting/aviation products are not intended for medical purposes, so they do not undergo FDA review."

Pulse oximeter use is important for patients diagnosed with breathing problems or lung diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, flu, pneumonia, or COVID-19 to collect accurate data on arterial blood oxygen saturation that they can share with their healthcare providers, according to the company. Patients with cardiac conditions, including pulmonary hypertension and heart failure may also benefit from pulse oximeter monitoring.

However, challenges of pulse oximeter use include measuring accuracy when patients are moving, measuring patients with poor circulation, and measuring patients with cool, thick, or darker skin. The MightySat Medical is designed to provide reliable measures of oxygen saturation and pulse rate across all patient groups, the manufacturers wrote in the press release.

Asked for additional comment, Diego J. Maselli, MD, FCCP, Professor and Chief in the division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care at UT Health at San Antonio, noted, "Over the past decades, there has been an increased interest in home monitoring of medical conditions, particulrly with the development of more portable and accessible technology."

"This was heightended by the COVID-19 pandemic where telemedicine was frequently required as a means of delivering care," Dr. Maselli continued. "One of the important characteristics to monitor was the oxgen saturation in patients that had an active COVID-19 infection as it would dictate management and was part of the protocol for monitoring the clinical course of infection. Because of this need, many companies developed portable pulse oximeters for home use. This resulted in widespread use of pulse oximeters at home and other places outside clinic or hospital."

Other over-the-counter pulse oximeters that are not cleared by the FDA may create confusion among patients about the accuracy of their measurements, according to the company.

Dr. Maselli also commented that pulse oximeters' value can vary. "Unfortunately, these devices vary in quality and reliability and patients may not be fully aware of this. Most recently, the FDA approved a hospital-grade pulse oximeter that requires no prescription. This device may provide a more accurate reading in a wide range of clinical situations outside the healthcare setting. Patients should be aware that there are different grades of pulse oximeter before selecting one for home use. In addition, patients should work closely with their providers to better select the monitoring modaility that best fits their clinical situation," he said.

MightySat Medical is indicated for individuals aged 18 years and older who are well or poorly perfused under no motion conditions and is not intended as a diagnostic or screening tool for lung disease, according to the release. Treatment decisions based on data from the device should be made only in consultation with a healthcare provider, the company said. Dr. Maselli serves as a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board.

The FDA’s website offers further guidance related to at-home pulse oximeter use, with recommendations and limitations, as well as information on initiatives to ensure accurate and equitable pulse oximetry for all patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If you’re an epidemiologist trying to explore whether some exposure is a risk factor for a disease, you can run into a tough problem when your exposure of interest is highly correlated with another risk factor for the disease. For decades, this stymied investigations into the link, if any, between marijuana use and cardiovascular disease because, for decades, most people who used marijuana in some way also smoked cigarettes — which is a very clear risk factor for heart disease.
 

But the times they are a-changing.

Thanks to the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in many states, and even broader social trends, there is now a large population of people who use marijuana but do not use cigarettes. That means we can start to determine whether marijuana use is an independent risk factor for heart disease.

And this week, we have the largest study yet to attempt to answer that question, though, as I’ll explain momentarily, the smoke hasn’t entirely cleared yet.

The centerpiece of the study we are discussing this week, “Association of Cannabis Use With Cardiovascular Outcomes Among US Adults,” which appeared in the Journal of the American Heart Association, is the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual telephone survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1984 that gathers data on all sorts of stuff that we do to ourselves: our drinking habits, our smoking habits, and, more recently, our marijuana habits.

The paper combines annual data from 2016 to 2020 representing 27 states and two US territories for a total sample size of more than 430,000 individuals. The key exposure? Marijuana use, which was coded as the number of days of marijuana use in the past 30 days. The key outcome? Coronary heart disease, collected through questions such as “Has a doctor, nurse, or other health professional ever told you that you had a heart attack?”

Right away you might detect a couple of problems here. But let me show you the results before we worry about what they mean.

You can see the rates of the major cardiovascular outcomes here, stratified by daily use of marijuana, nondaily use, and no use. Broadly speaking, the risk was highest for daily users, lowest for occasional users, and in the middle for non-users.

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

JAMA

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If you’re an epidemiologist trying to explore whether some exposure is a risk factor for a disease, you can run into a tough problem when your exposure of interest is highly correlated with another risk factor for the disease. For decades, this stymied investigations into the link, if any, between marijuana use and cardiovascular disease because, for decades, most people who used marijuana in some way also smoked cigarettes — which is a very clear risk factor for heart disease.
 

But the times they are a-changing.

Thanks to the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in many states, and even broader social trends, there is now a large population of people who use marijuana but do not use cigarettes. That means we can start to determine whether marijuana use is an independent risk factor for heart disease.

And this week, we have the largest study yet to attempt to answer that question, though, as I’ll explain momentarily, the smoke hasn’t entirely cleared yet.

The centerpiece of the study we are discussing this week, “Association of Cannabis Use With Cardiovascular Outcomes Among US Adults,” which appeared in the Journal of the American Heart Association, is the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual telephone survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1984 that gathers data on all sorts of stuff that we do to ourselves: our drinking habits, our smoking habits, and, more recently, our marijuana habits.

The paper combines annual data from 2016 to 2020 representing 27 states and two US territories for a total sample size of more than 430,000 individuals. The key exposure? Marijuana use, which was coded as the number of days of marijuana use in the past 30 days. The key outcome? Coronary heart disease, collected through questions such as “Has a doctor, nurse, or other health professional ever told you that you had a heart attack?”

Right away you might detect a couple of problems here. But let me show you the results before we worry about what they mean.

You can see the rates of the major cardiovascular outcomes here, stratified by daily use of marijuana, nondaily use, and no use. Broadly speaking, the risk was highest for daily users, lowest for occasional users, and in the middle for non-users.

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

JAMA

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

If you’re an epidemiologist trying to explore whether some exposure is a risk factor for a disease, you can run into a tough problem when your exposure of interest is highly correlated with another risk factor for the disease. For decades, this stymied investigations into the link, if any, between marijuana use and cardiovascular disease because, for decades, most people who used marijuana in some way also smoked cigarettes — which is a very clear risk factor for heart disease.
 

But the times they are a-changing.

Thanks to the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in many states, and even broader social trends, there is now a large population of people who use marijuana but do not use cigarettes. That means we can start to determine whether marijuana use is an independent risk factor for heart disease.

And this week, we have the largest study yet to attempt to answer that question, though, as I’ll explain momentarily, the smoke hasn’t entirely cleared yet.

The centerpiece of the study we are discussing this week, “Association of Cannabis Use With Cardiovascular Outcomes Among US Adults,” which appeared in the Journal of the American Heart Association, is the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual telephone survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1984 that gathers data on all sorts of stuff that we do to ourselves: our drinking habits, our smoking habits, and, more recently, our marijuana habits.

The paper combines annual data from 2016 to 2020 representing 27 states and two US territories for a total sample size of more than 430,000 individuals. The key exposure? Marijuana use, which was coded as the number of days of marijuana use in the past 30 days. The key outcome? Coronary heart disease, collected through questions such as “Has a doctor, nurse, or other health professional ever told you that you had a heart attack?”

Right away you might detect a couple of problems here. But let me show you the results before we worry about what they mean.

You can see the rates of the major cardiovascular outcomes here, stratified by daily use of marijuana, nondaily use, and no use. Broadly speaking, the risk was highest for daily users, lowest for occasional users, and in the middle for non-users.

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

Courtesy Dr. Wilson

JAMA

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People with gout are 58% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to a new analysis. This increased risk was observed across 12 different cardiovascular conditions, including heart failure, arrhythmias, and valve diseases.

“These findings suggest that the organ damage associated with gout is likely to be much broader than originally thought,” Nathalie Conrad, PhD, senior author of the research and cardiovascular epidemiologist at KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, said in an email. This could be useful for future research on underlying biological mechanisms driving CVD risk in gout, she added.

While previous research has tied gout to increased cardiovascular risk, these studies “largely focused on coronary heart disease, stroke, and thromboembolic outcomes,” she explained, and have been smaller in size.

This new study included more than 862,000 individuals, which permitted researchers to investigate rarer CVD outcomes such as myocarditis and pericarditis.

For the study, researchers used electronic health records from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a primary care database that contains anonymized health data for about 22 million individuals. Using these data, they identified more than 152,600 individuals with gout. Patients included in the analysis were diagnosed between 2000 and 2017, younger than 80 years at diagnosis, and free of CVD for at least 12 months after their gout diagnosis.

Patients with gout were compared with nearly 710,000 controls, matched on demographic factors such as age, sex, and geographic region.

Researchers then investigated the incidence of 12 CVDs, including atherosclerotic diseases, degenerative and thromboembolic diseases, and arrythmias, between the two groups from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2019.

The findings were published in the March 2024 issue of The Lancet Rheumatology. Overall, patients with gout were 58% more likely to develop any CVD than their matched comparators without gout. There was a higher disease incidence among patients with gout for each of the 12 conditions. This association was more pronounced in women (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88) than in men (HR, 1.49), and gout amplified the risk for CVD in younger individuals to a greater extent.

Individuals younger than 45 years with gout were more than twice as likely to develop CVD compared with similarly aged individuals without gout. For comparison, individuals aged 45-54 years with gout were 84% more likely to develop CVD, and individuals aged 55-64 years were 57% more likely to develop CVD than matched controls.

Conduction system disease had the highest incident risk (HR, 1.88), followed by heart failure and valve disease (HR, 1.85 for both).

Individuals with gout had higher rates of comorbidities than the controls, including hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Overall, CVD risk was slightly attenuated after adjustment for traditional CVD risk factors such as smoking, blood pressure, and body mass index but still significant: Patients with gout had a 31% higher risk for CVD than comparators.

This shows “that known CVD risk factors only explain part of the CVD risks seen in patients with gout,” Dr. Conrad said. Other factors such as inflammation and other disease activity factors could be at play, she explained, which would need to be explored in future research.

The study “shows the whole landscape” of CVD and gout, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

“Every possible cardiovascular disease that they could think of was something that gout patients had more of than the non-gout patients,” he added. “I think this is going to be a paper that gets cited a lot, at minimum when describing the background of risk when we look at gout patients.”

The study had some limitations, including that researchers were unable to account for how medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, colchicine, or allopurinol may have affected the association between gout and CVD.

“This is because analyses of nonrandomized treatment can be confounded by indication, wherein it is difficult to differentiate the effects of the treatment from underlying disease severity,” the authors wrote.

There was also a large amount of missing data on blood pressure, body mass index, smoking status, and other health information relevant to cardiovascular risk, so sensitivity analyses adjusting for these factors “should be interpreted with caution,” they added.

Dr. Pillinger also noted that the rates of comorbidities in the gout study population were lower than what have been found in US study populations. For example, about 40% of patients with gout in the analysis had hypertension, while other studies have suggested higher rates of 60%-70%, he said. However, it’s not clear if these differences could have affected outcomes. He added that these limitations do not “in any way weaken [the authors’] conclusion.”

The findings call for better strategies to reduce CVD risk in patients with gout, Dr. Conrad noted.

“Further improvements could come from better recognition and intervention on CVD risk factors (eg, through lifestyle changes or drug therapies where they are indicated), as well as proactive screening for heart disease in patients with gout, which could allow early diagnosis and interventions to delay more severe outcomes,” she added.

This study was funded by Research Foundation Flanders. Dr. Conrad was funded by a personal fellowship from the Research Foundation Flanders and a European Society of Cardiology research grant. She received royalties from Oxford University Innovation. Four of Dr. Conrad’s eight coauthors also reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Pillinger served as a consultant to Amgen, Federation Bio, Fortress Biotech, and Scilex, and he holds an investigator-initiated grant from Hikma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.