The US government has a legacy of providing support for veterans. Pensions were offered to disabled veterans as early as 1776, and benefits were expanded to cover medical needs as the country grew and modernized.^1,2 Enacted during the Civil War, the General Pension Act increased benefits for widows and dependents.² Rehabilitation and vocational training assistance benefits were added after World War I, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was created in 1930 to consolidate all benefits under one umbrella organization.^2,3

Prior to World War II, the VA lacked the bed capacity for the 4 million veterans who were eligible for care. This shortage became more acute by the end of the war, when the number of eligible veterans increased by 15 million.⁴ Although the VA successfully built bed capacity through acquisition of military hospitals, VA hospitals struggled to recruit clinical staff.² Physicians were hesitant to join the VA because civil service salaries were lower than comparable positions in the community, and the VA offered limited opportunities for research or continuing education. These limitations negatively impacted the overall reputation of the VA. The American Medical Association (AMA) was reluctant to directly admit VA physicians for membership because of a “lower” standard of care at VA hospitals.² This review will describe how passage of 2 legislative actions, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act and Public Law (PL)79-293, and a key policy memorandum set the foundation for the partnership between the VA and academic medical centers. This led to improved medical care for veterans and expansion of health professions education for VA and the nation.^5,6

GI Bill of Rights

The passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill of Rights, provided education assistance, guaranteed home loans, and unemployment payments to veterans.⁵ All medical officers serving during the war were eligible for this benefit, which effectively increased the number of potential physician trainees at the end of World War II by almost 60,000.⁷ Medical education at the time was simultaneously undergoing a transformation with more rigorous training and a push to standardize medical education across state lines. While prerequisite training was not required for admission to many medical schools and curricula varied in length based on state licensing requirements, more programs were adding premedical education requirements and transitioning to the 4-year curricula seen today. At this time, only 23 states required postgraduate internships for licensure, but this number was growing.⁸ The American Board of Medical Specialties was established several years prior to World War II in 1934 to elevate the quality of care; the desire for residency training and board certification continued to gain traction during the 1940s.⁹

Medical Training

In anticipation of an influx of medical trainees, the Committee on Postwar Medical Service conducted a comprehensive survey to understand the training needs of physician veterans returning from World War II.⁷ The survey collected data from medical officers on their desired length of training, interest in specialty board certification, time served, and type of medical practice prior to enlisting. Length of desired training was categorized as short (up to 6 months), which would serve as a refresher course and provide updates on recent advances in medicine and surgery, and long (> 6 months), which resembled a modern internship or residency. Nineteen percent did not want additional training, 22% wished to pursue short courses, and 51% were interested in longer courses. Most respondents also wished to obtain board certification.⁷ The AMA played a significant role in supporting the expansion of training opportunities, encouraging all accredited hospitals to assess their capacity to determine the number of additional residents they could accommodate. The AMA also awarded hospitals with existing internship programs temporary accreditation to allow them to add extended training through residency programs.⁷

Medical schools devised creative solutions to meet the needs of returning physician veterans and capitalize on the available educational benefits. Postgraduate refresher courses that varied in length from hours to months were developed focusing on an array of topics. In addition to basic medical principles, courses covered general topics, such as advances in medicine, to specialty topics, such as nutrition or ophthalmology.⁷ Although the courses could not be counted toward board certification, participation increased by almost 300% in the 1945/1946 academic year relative to the previous year.⁷ Increasing access to the longer training courses, including internships and residencies, was often achieved through experiences outside the clinical setting. Yale University modified its curriculum to reduce time devoted to lectures on published materials and encourage active learning and community outreach.¹⁰ Northwestern University assigned residents to spend 1 of their 3 years “out of residence” in basic science and clinical instruction provided by the medical school. Tuition assistance from the GI Bill supported the additional expenses incurred by the medical school to fund laboratory space, equipment, and the salaries of the basic science instructors and administrative staff.¹¹

Public Law 79-293

Public Law 79-293 was passed on January 3, 1946, establishing the Department of Medicine and Surgery within the VA. The law, which became the basis for Title 38 chapters 73 and 74, allowed VA hospitals flexibility to hire doctors, dentists, and nurses without regard to the civil service regulations and salary restrictions associated with other federal positions.⁶

Concerns about quality of care had been mounting for years, and the release of several sensationalized and critical articles motivated VA leadership to make sweeping changes. One article described neglect at VA hospitals.¹² Excessive paperwork and low economic benefits were identified as barriers to the recruitment of qualified clinicians at the VA.² The VA Special Medical Advisory Group investigating the claims recommended that the VA encourage their hospitals to affiliate with medical schools to improve the quality of care. This group also recommended that new VA hospitals be constructed near academic medical centers to allow access to consultants.² Three large veterans service organizations (American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans) conducted their own investigations in response to the media reports. The organizations reported that the quality of care in most VA hospitals was already on par with the community but indicated that the VA would benefit from expansion of medical research and training, increased bed capacity, reduction in the administrative burden on clinicians, and increased salaries for clinical staff.²

Policy Memorandum No. 2

The relationship between VA and academic medical centers was solidified on January 30, 1946, with adoption of Policy Memorandum No. 2.¹³ This memorandum allowed for the establishment of relationships with academic medical centers to provide “the veteran a much higher standard of medical care than could be given him with a wholly full-time medical staff.” Shortly after this memorandum was signed, residents from Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicago began clinical rotations at the Hines VA facility in Chicago, Illinois.² By 1947, 62 medical schools had committed to an affiliation with local VA hospitals and 21 deans’ committees were in operation, which were responsible for the appointment of physician residents and consultants. The AMA extended direct membership privileges to VA physicians, and by 1947 the number of residency positions doubled nationally.^14,15 The almost universal support of the relationship between VA and academic affiliates provided educational opportunities for returning veterans and raised standards for medical education nationally.

Current State

Since the passage of PL 79-293 and PM No. 2, the VA-academic health professions education partnership has grown to include 113,000 trainees rotating through 150 VA medical centers annually from more than 1400 colleges and universities.¹⁶ Most VA podiatrists, psychologists, optometrists, and physicians working in VA medical centers also trained at VA, and trainees are 37% more likely to consider a job at VA after completing their clinical rotations. This unique partnership began 76 years ago and continues to provide clinicians “for VA and the nation.”

The US government has a legacy of providing support for veterans. Pensions were offered to disabled veterans as early as 1776, and benefits were expanded to cover medical needs as the country grew and modernized.^1,2 Enacted during the Civil War, the General Pension Act increased benefits for widows and dependents.² Rehabilitation and vocational training assistance benefits were added after World War I, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was created in 1930 to consolidate all benefits under one umbrella organization.^2,3

Prior to World War II, the VA lacked the bed capacity for the 4 million veterans who were eligible for care. This shortage became more acute by the end of the war, when the number of eligible veterans increased by 15 million.⁴ Although the VA successfully built bed capacity through acquisition of military hospitals, VA hospitals struggled to recruit clinical staff.² Physicians were hesitant to join the VA because civil service salaries were lower than comparable positions in the community, and the VA offered limited opportunities for research or continuing education. These limitations negatively impacted the overall reputation of the VA. The American Medical Association (AMA) was reluctant to directly admit VA physicians for membership because of a “lower” standard of care at VA hospitals.² This review will describe how passage of 2 legislative actions, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act and Public Law (PL)79-293, and a key policy memorandum set the foundation for the partnership between the VA and academic medical centers. This led to improved medical care for veterans and expansion of health professions education for VA and the nation.^5,6

GI Bill of Rights

The passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill of Rights, provided education assistance, guaranteed home loans, and unemployment payments to veterans.⁵ All medical officers serving during the war were eligible for this benefit, which effectively increased the number of potential physician trainees at the end of World War II by almost 60,000.⁷ Medical education at the time was simultaneously undergoing a transformation with more rigorous training and a push to standardize medical education across state lines. While prerequisite training was not required for admission to many medical schools and curricula varied in length based on state licensing requirements, more programs were adding premedical education requirements and transitioning to the 4-year curricula seen today. At this time, only 23 states required postgraduate internships for licensure, but this number was growing.⁸ The American Board of Medical Specialties was established several years prior to World War II in 1934 to elevate the quality of care; the desire for residency training and board certification continued to gain traction during the 1940s.⁹

Medical Training

In anticipation of an influx of medical trainees, the Committee on Postwar Medical Service conducted a comprehensive survey to understand the training needs of physician veterans returning from World War II.⁷ The survey collected data from medical officers on their desired length of training, interest in specialty board certification, time served, and type of medical practice prior to enlisting. Length of desired training was categorized as short (up to 6 months), which would serve as a refresher course and provide updates on recent advances in medicine and surgery, and long (> 6 months), which resembled a modern internship or residency. Nineteen percent did not want additional training, 22% wished to pursue short courses, and 51% were interested in longer courses. Most respondents also wished to obtain board certification.⁷ The AMA played a significant role in supporting the expansion of training opportunities, encouraging all accredited hospitals to assess their capacity to determine the number of additional residents they could accommodate. The AMA also awarded hospitals with existing internship programs temporary accreditation to allow them to add extended training through residency programs.⁷

Medical schools devised creative solutions to meet the needs of returning physician veterans and capitalize on the available educational benefits. Postgraduate refresher courses that varied in length from hours to months were developed focusing on an array of topics. In addition to basic medical principles, courses covered general topics, such as advances in medicine, to specialty topics, such as nutrition or ophthalmology.⁷ Although the courses could not be counted toward board certification, participation increased by almost 300% in the 1945/1946 academic year relative to the previous year.⁷ Increasing access to the longer training courses, including internships and residencies, was often achieved through experiences outside the clinical setting. Yale University modified its curriculum to reduce time devoted to lectures on published materials and encourage active learning and community outreach.¹⁰ Northwestern University assigned residents to spend 1 of their 3 years “out of residence” in basic science and clinical instruction provided by the medical school. Tuition assistance from the GI Bill supported the additional expenses incurred by the medical school to fund laboratory space, equipment, and the salaries of the basic science instructors and administrative staff.¹¹

Public Law 79-293

Public Law 79-293 was passed on January 3, 1946, establishing the Department of Medicine and Surgery within the VA. The law, which became the basis for Title 38 chapters 73 and 74, allowed VA hospitals flexibility to hire doctors, dentists, and nurses without regard to the civil service regulations and salary restrictions associated with other federal positions.⁶

Concerns about quality of care had been mounting for years, and the release of several sensationalized and critical articles motivated VA leadership to make sweeping changes. One article described neglect at VA hospitals.¹² Excessive paperwork and low economic benefits were identified as barriers to the recruitment of qualified clinicians at the VA.² The VA Special Medical Advisory Group investigating the claims recommended that the VA encourage their hospitals to affiliate with medical schools to improve the quality of care. This group also recommended that new VA hospitals be constructed near academic medical centers to allow access to consultants.² Three large veterans service organizations (American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans) conducted their own investigations in response to the media reports. The organizations reported that the quality of care in most VA hospitals was already on par with the community but indicated that the VA would benefit from expansion of medical research and training, increased bed capacity, reduction in the administrative burden on clinicians, and increased salaries for clinical staff.²

Policy Memorandum No. 2

The relationship between VA and academic medical centers was solidified on January 30, 1946, with adoption of Policy Memorandum No. 2.¹³ This memorandum allowed for the establishment of relationships with academic medical centers to provide “the veteran a much higher standard of medical care than could be given him with a wholly full-time medical staff.” Shortly after this memorandum was signed, residents from Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicago began clinical rotations at the Hines VA facility in Chicago, Illinois.² By 1947, 62 medical schools had committed to an affiliation with local VA hospitals and 21 deans’ committees were in operation, which were responsible for the appointment of physician residents and consultants. The AMA extended direct membership privileges to VA physicians, and by 1947 the number of residency positions doubled nationally.^14,15 The almost universal support of the relationship between VA and academic affiliates provided educational opportunities for returning veterans and raised standards for medical education nationally.

Current State

Since the passage of PL 79-293 and PM No. 2, the VA-academic health professions education partnership has grown to include 113,000 trainees rotating through 150 VA medical centers annually from more than 1400 colleges and universities.¹⁶ Most VA podiatrists, psychologists, optometrists, and physicians working in VA medical centers also trained at VA, and trainees are 37% more likely to consider a job at VA after completing their clinical rotations. This unique partnership began 76 years ago and continues to provide clinicians “for VA and the nation.”

The US government has a legacy of providing support for veterans. Pensions were offered to disabled veterans as early as 1776, and benefits were expanded to cover medical needs as the country grew and modernized.^1,2 Enacted during the Civil War, the General Pension Act increased benefits for widows and dependents.² Rehabilitation and vocational training assistance benefits were added after World War I, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was created in 1930 to consolidate all benefits under one umbrella organization.^2,3

Prior to World War II, the VA lacked the bed capacity for the 4 million veterans who were eligible for care. This shortage became more acute by the end of the war, when the number of eligible veterans increased by 15 million.⁴ Although the VA successfully built bed capacity through acquisition of military hospitals, VA hospitals struggled to recruit clinical staff.² Physicians were hesitant to join the VA because civil service salaries were lower than comparable positions in the community, and the VA offered limited opportunities for research or continuing education. These limitations negatively impacted the overall reputation of the VA. The American Medical Association (AMA) was reluctant to directly admit VA physicians for membership because of a “lower” standard of care at VA hospitals.² This review will describe how passage of 2 legislative actions, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act and Public Law (PL)79-293, and a key policy memorandum set the foundation for the partnership between the VA and academic medical centers. This led to improved medical care for veterans and expansion of health professions education for VA and the nation.^5,6

GI Bill of Rights

The passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill of Rights, provided education assistance, guaranteed home loans, and unemployment payments to veterans.⁵ All medical officers serving during the war were eligible for this benefit, which effectively increased the number of potential physician trainees at the end of World War II by almost 60,000.⁷ Medical education at the time was simultaneously undergoing a transformation with more rigorous training and a push to standardize medical education across state lines. While prerequisite training was not required for admission to many medical schools and curricula varied in length based on state licensing requirements, more programs were adding premedical education requirements and transitioning to the 4-year curricula seen today. At this time, only 23 states required postgraduate internships for licensure, but this number was growing.⁸ The American Board of Medical Specialties was established several years prior to World War II in 1934 to elevate the quality of care; the desire for residency training and board certification continued to gain traction during the 1940s.⁹

Medical Training

In anticipation of an influx of medical trainees, the Committee on Postwar Medical Service conducted a comprehensive survey to understand the training needs of physician veterans returning from World War II.⁷ The survey collected data from medical officers on their desired length of training, interest in specialty board certification, time served, and type of medical practice prior to enlisting. Length of desired training was categorized as short (up to 6 months), which would serve as a refresher course and provide updates on recent advances in medicine and surgery, and long (> 6 months), which resembled a modern internship or residency. Nineteen percent did not want additional training, 22% wished to pursue short courses, and 51% were interested in longer courses. Most respondents also wished to obtain board certification.⁷ The AMA played a significant role in supporting the expansion of training opportunities, encouraging all accredited hospitals to assess their capacity to determine the number of additional residents they could accommodate. The AMA also awarded hospitals with existing internship programs temporary accreditation to allow them to add extended training through residency programs.⁷

Medical schools devised creative solutions to meet the needs of returning physician veterans and capitalize on the available educational benefits. Postgraduate refresher courses that varied in length from hours to months were developed focusing on an array of topics. In addition to basic medical principles, courses covered general topics, such as advances in medicine, to specialty topics, such as nutrition or ophthalmology.⁷ Although the courses could not be counted toward board certification, participation increased by almost 300% in the 1945/1946 academic year relative to the previous year.⁷ Increasing access to the longer training courses, including internships and residencies, was often achieved through experiences outside the clinical setting. Yale University modified its curriculum to reduce time devoted to lectures on published materials and encourage active learning and community outreach.¹⁰ Northwestern University assigned residents to spend 1 of their 3 years “out of residence” in basic science and clinical instruction provided by the medical school. Tuition assistance from the GI Bill supported the additional expenses incurred by the medical school to fund laboratory space, equipment, and the salaries of the basic science instructors and administrative staff.¹¹

Public Law 79-293

Public Law 79-293 was passed on January 3, 1946, establishing the Department of Medicine and Surgery within the VA. The law, which became the basis for Title 38 chapters 73 and 74, allowed VA hospitals flexibility to hire doctors, dentists, and nurses without regard to the civil service regulations and salary restrictions associated with other federal positions.⁶

Concerns about quality of care had been mounting for years, and the release of several sensationalized and critical articles motivated VA leadership to make sweeping changes. One article described neglect at VA hospitals.¹² Excessive paperwork and low economic benefits were identified as barriers to the recruitment of qualified clinicians at the VA.² The VA Special Medical Advisory Group investigating the claims recommended that the VA encourage their hospitals to affiliate with medical schools to improve the quality of care. This group also recommended that new VA hospitals be constructed near academic medical centers to allow access to consultants.² Three large veterans service organizations (American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Disabled American Veterans) conducted their own investigations in response to the media reports. The organizations reported that the quality of care in most VA hospitals was already on par with the community but indicated that the VA would benefit from expansion of medical research and training, increased bed capacity, reduction in the administrative burden on clinicians, and increased salaries for clinical staff.²

Policy Memorandum No. 2

The relationship between VA and academic medical centers was solidified on January 30, 1946, with adoption of Policy Memorandum No. 2.¹³ This memorandum allowed for the establishment of relationships with academic medical centers to provide “the veteran a much higher standard of medical care than could be given him with a wholly full-time medical staff.” Shortly after this memorandum was signed, residents from Northwestern University and the University of Illinois at Chicago began clinical rotations at the Hines VA facility in Chicago, Illinois.² By 1947, 62 medical schools had committed to an affiliation with local VA hospitals and 21 deans’ committees were in operation, which were responsible for the appointment of physician residents and consultants. The AMA extended direct membership privileges to VA physicians, and by 1947 the number of residency positions doubled nationally.^14,15 The almost universal support of the relationship between VA and academic affiliates provided educational opportunities for returning veterans and raised standards for medical education nationally.

Current State

Since the passage of PL 79-293 and PM No. 2, the VA-academic health professions education partnership has grown to include 113,000 trainees rotating through 150 VA medical centers annually from more than 1400 colleges and universities.¹⁶ Most VA podiatrists, psychologists, optometrists, and physicians working in VA medical centers also trained at VA, and trainees are 37% more likely to consider a job at VA after completing their clinical rotations. This unique partnership began 76 years ago and continues to provide clinicians “for VA and the nation.”

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intake of salt is a biological necessity, inextricably woven into physiologic systems. However, excessive salt intake is associated with high blood pressure. Hypertension is linked to increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and it is estimated that excessive salt intake causes approximately 5 million deaths per year worldwide. Reducing salt intake lowers blood pressure, but processed foods contain “hidden” salt, which makes dietary control of salt difficult. This problem is compounded by growing inequalities in food systems, which present another hurdle to sustaining individual dietary control of salt intake.

Krisana Antharith / EyeEm / Getty Images

Of the 87 risk factors included in the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019, high systolic blood pressure was identified as the leading risk factor for disease burden at the global level and for its effect on human health. A range of strategies, including primary care management and reduction in sodium intake, are known to reduce the burden of this critical risk factor. Two questions remain unanswered: “What is the relationship between mortality and adding salt to foods?” and “How much does a reduction in salt intake influence people’s health?”
 

Cardiovascular disease and death

Because dietary sodium intake has been identified as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death, high sodium intake can be expected to curtail life span. A study tested this hypothesis by analyzing the relationship between sodium intake and life expectancy and survival in 181 countries. Sodium intake correlated positively with life expectancy and inversely with all-cause mortality worldwide and in high-income countries, which argues against dietary sodium intake curtailing life span or a being risk factor for premature death. These results help fuel a scientific debate about sodium intake, life expectancy, and mortality. The debate requires interpreting composite data of positive linear, J-shaped, or inverse linear correlations, which underscores the uncertainty regarding this issue.

In a prospective study of 501,379 participants from the UK Biobank, researchers found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of premature mortality and lower life expectancy independently of diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic level, and preexisting diseases. They found that the positive association appeared to be attenuated with increasing intake of high-potassium foods (vegetables and fruits).

In addition, the researchers made the following observations:

• For cause-specific premature mortality, they found that higher frequency of adding salt to foods was significantly associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer mortality (P-trend < .001 and P-trend < .001, respectively).
• Always adding salt to foods was associated with the lower life expectancy at the age of 50 years by 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-2.30) and 2.28 (95% CI, 1.66-2.90) years for women and men, respectively, compared with participants who never or rarely added salt to foods.

The researchers noted that adding salt to foods (usually at the table) is common and is directly related to an individual’s long-term preference for salty foods and habitual salt intake. Indeed, in the Western diet, adding salt at the table accounts for 6%-20% of total salt intake. In addition, commonly used table salt contains 97%-99% sodium chloride, minimizing the potential confounding effects of other dietary factors, including potassium. Therefore, adding salt to foods provides a way to evaluate the association between habitual sodium intake and mortality – something that is relevant, given that it has been estimated that in 2010, a total of 1.65 million deaths from cardiovascular causes were attributable to consumption of more than 2.0 g of sodium per day.
 

Salt sensitivity

Current evidence supports a recommendation for moderate sodium intake in the general population (3-5 g/day). Persons with hypertension should consume salt at the lower end of that range. Some dietary guidelines recommend consuming less than 2,300 mg dietary sodium per day for persons aged 14 years or older and less for persons aged 2-13 years. Although low sodium intake (< 2.0 g/day) has been achieved in short-term clinical trials, sustained low sodium intake has not been achieved in any of the longer-term clinical trials (duration > 6 months).

The controversy continues as to the relationship between low sodium intake and blood pressure or cardiovascular diseases. Most studies show that both in individuals with hypertension and those without, blood pressure is reduced by consuming less sodium. However, it is not necessarily lowered by reducing sodium intake (< 3-5 g/day). With a sodium-rich diet, most normotensive individuals experienced a minimal change in mean arterial pressure; for many individuals with hypertension, the values increased by about 4 mm Hg. In addition, among individuals with hypertension who are “salt sensitive,” arterial pressure can increase by > 10 mm Hg in response to high sodium intake.
 

The effect of potassium

Replacing some of the sodium chloride in regular salt with potassium chloride may mitigate some of salt’s harmful cardiovascular effects. Indeed, salt substitutes that have reduced sodium levels and increased potassium levels have been shown to lower blood pressure.

In one trial, researchers enrolled over 20,000 persons from 600 villages in rural China and compared the use of regular salt (100% sodium chloride) with the use of a salt substitute (75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride by mass).

The participants were at high risk for stroke, cardiovascular events, and death. The mean duration of follow-up was 4.74 years. The results were surprising. The rate of stroke was lower with the salt substitute than with regular salt (29.14 events vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .006), as were the rates of major cardiovascular events and death from any cause. The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt.

Although there is an ongoing debate about the extent of salt’s effects on the cardiovascular system, there is no doubt that in most places in the world, people are consuming more salt than the body needs.

A lot depends upon the kind of diet consumed by a particular population. Processed food is rarely used in rural areas, such as those involved in the above-mentioned trial, with dietary sodium chloride being added while preparing food at home. This is a determining factor with regard to cardiovascular outcomes, but it cannot be generalized to other social-environmental settings.

In much of the world, commercial food preservation introduces a lot of sodium chloride into the diet, and most salt intake could not be fully attributed to the use of salt substitutes. Indeed, by comparing the sodium content of cereal-based products currently sold on the Italian market with the respective benchmarks proposed by the World Health Organization, researchers found that for most items, the sodium content is much higher than the benchmarks, especially with flatbreads, leavened breads, and crackers/savory biscuits. This shows that there is work to be done to achieve the World Health Organization/United Nations objective of a 30% global reduction in sodium intake by 2025.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Comments from the White House this week suggesting a once-a-year COVID-19 shot for most Americans, “just like your annual flu shot,” were met with backlash from many who say COVID and influenza come from different viruses and need different schedules.

Remarks, from “capitulation” to too few data, hit the airwaves and social media.

Some, however, agree with the White House vision and say that asking people to get one shot in the fall instead of periodic pushes for boosters will raise public confidence and buy-in and reduce consumer confusion.  

Health leaders, including Bob Wachter, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, say they like the framing of the concept – that people who are not high-risk should plan each year for a COVID shot and a flu shot.

“Doesn’t mean we KNOW shot will prevent transmission for a year. DOES mean it’ll likely lower odds of SEVERE case for a year & we need strategy to bump uptake,” Dr. Wachter tweeted this week.

But the numbers of Americans seeking boosters remain low. Only one-third of all eligible people 50 years and older have gotten a second COVID booster, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About half of those who got the original two shots got a first booster.

Meanwhile, the United States is still averaging about 70,000 new COVID cases and more than 300 deaths every day.

The suggested change in approach comes as Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna roll out their new boosters that target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 after the CDC recommended their use and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved emergency use authorization. 

“As the virus continues to change, we will now be able to update our vaccines annually to target the dominant variant,” President Joe Biden said in a statement promoting the yearly approach.
 

Some say annual shot premature

Other experts say it’s too soon to tell whether an annual approach will work.

“We have no data to support that current vaccines, including the new BA.5 booster, will provide durable protection beyond 4-6 months. It would be good to aspire to this objective, and much longer duration or protection, but that will likely require next generation and nasal vaccines,” said Eric Topol, MD, Medscape’s editor-in-chief and founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute.

A report in Nature Reviews Immunology states, “Mucosal vaccines offer the potential to trigger robust protective immune responses at the predominant sites of pathogen infection” and potentially “can prevent an infection from becoming established in the first place, rather than only curtailing infection and protecting against the development of disease symptoms.”

Dr. Topol tweeted after the White House statements, “[An annual vaccine] has the ring of Covid capitulation.”

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., told this news organization that he cautions against interpreting the White House comments as official policy.

“This is the difficulty of having public health announcements come out of Washington,” he said. “They ought to come out of the CDC.”

He says there is a reasonable analogy between COVID and influenza, but warns, “don’t push the analogy.”

They are both serious respiratory viruses that can cause much illness and death in essentially the same populations, he notes. These are the older, frail people, people who have underlying illnesses or are immunocompromised.

Both viruses also mutate. But there the paths diverge.

“We’ve gotten into a pattern of annually updating the influenza vaccine because it is such a singularly seasonal virus,” Dr. Schaffner said. “Basically it disappears during the summer. We’ve had plenty of COVID during the summers.”

For COVID, he said, “We will need a periodic booster. Could this be annually? That would certainly make it easier.” But it’s too soon to tell, he said.

Dr. Schaffner noted that several manufacturers are working on a combined flu/COVID vaccine.
 

Just a ‘first step’ toward annual shot

The currently updated COVID vaccine may be the first step toward an annual vaccine, but it’s only the first step, Dr. Schaffner said. “We haven’t committed to further steps yet because we’re watching this virus.”

Syra Madad, DHSc, MSc, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Mass., and the New York City hospital system, told this news organization that arguments on both sides make sense.

Having a single message once a year can help eliminate the considerable confusion involving people on individual timelines with different levels of immunity and separate campaigns for COVID and flu shots coming at different times of the year.

“Communication around vaccines is very muddled and that shows in our overall vaccination rates, particularly booster rates,” she says. “The overall strategy is hopeful and makes sense if we’re going to progress that way based on data.”

However, she said that the data are just not there yet to show it’s time for an annual vaccine. First, scientists will need to see how long protection lasts with the Omicron-specific vaccine and how well and how long it protects against severe disease and death as well as infection.

COVID is less predictable than influenza and the influenza vaccine has been around for decades, Dr. Madad noted. With influenza, the patterns are more easily anticipated with their “ladder-like pattern,” she said. “COVID-19 is not like that.”

What is hopeful, she said, “is that we’ve been in the Omicron dynasty since November of 2021. I’m hopeful that we’ll stick with that particular variant.”

Dr. Topol, Dr. Schaffner, and Dr. Madad declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

During a medical malpractice trial in New Jersey, jurors waited nearly 4 hours for the physician defendant to show up. When he did arrive, the body-building surgeon was sporting two thick gold chains and a diamond pinky ring, and had the top buttons of his shirt open enough to reveal his chest hair.

“This trial was in a very rural, farming community,” recalls medical liability defense attorney Catherine Flynn, of Flynn Watts LLC, based in Parsippany, N.J. “Many of the jurors were wearing flannel shirts and jeans. The doctor’s wife walked in wearing a five-carat diamond ring and other jewelry.”

Ms. Flynn took the couple aside and asked them to remove the jewelry. She explained that the opulent accessories could damage the jury’s view of the physician. The surgeon and his wife, however, refused to remove their jewelry, she said. They didn’t think it was a big deal.

The case against the surgeon involved intraoperative damage to a patient when the physician inadvertently removed a portion of nerve in the area of the procedure. After repair of the nerve, the patient had a positive result. However, the patient alleged the surgeon’s negligence resulted in permanent damage despite the successful repair.

Jurors ultimately found the physician negligent in the case and awarded the plaintiff $1.2 million. Ms. Flynn believes that physician’s flamboyant attire and arrogant nature tainted the jury’s decision.

“In certain counties in New Jersey, his attire would not have been a problem,” she said. “In this rural, farming county, it was a huge problem. You have to know your audience. There are a lot of other things that come into play in a medical malpractice case, but when it comes to damages in a case, you don’t want to be sending the message that supports what somebody’s bias may already be telling them about a doctor.”

The surgeon appealed the verdict, and the case ultimately settled for a lesser amount, according to Ms. Flynn.

An over-the-top wardrobe is just one way that physicians can negatively influence jurors during legal trials. From subtle facial expressions to sudden outbursts to downright rudeness, attorneys have witnessed countless examples of physicians sabotaging their own trials. Legal experts say the cringeworthy experiences are good reminders that jurors are often judging more than just evidence.  

“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark, of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
 

Juror: We didn’t like the doctor’s shoes

In another case, attorneys warned a physician defendant against dressing in his signature wardrobe during his trial. Against their advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut. On the witness stand, the doctor was long-winded and wasn’t “terribly likable,” Ms. Lander said.

However, the evidence weighed in the physician’s favor, and there was strong testimony by defense experts. The physician won the case, Ms. Lander said, but after the verdict, the jury foreperson approached the trial attorney and made some disparaging remarks about the defendant.

“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Ms. Lander said.

Disruptive behavior can also harm jurors’ perception of physicians, Ms. Flynn adds. During one instance, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Ms. Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Ms. Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.

“The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Ms. Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!’ ”

The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Ms. Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors, she said. 

But things got worse when the surgeon testified. Rather than answer the questions, he interrupted and started telling jurors his own version of events.

“The judge finally said, ‘Doctor, if you don’t listen to your attorney and answer her questions, I’m going to make you get off the stand,’ ” Ms. Flynn said. “That was the most unbelievable, egregious self-sabotage trial moment I’ve ever experienced.”

Fortunately, the physician’s legal case was strong, and the experts who testified drove the defense’s side home, Ms. Flynn said. The surgeon won the case.
 

Attorney: Watch what you say in the elevator

Other, more subtle behaviors – while often unintentional – can also be damaging.

Physicians often let their guard down while outside the courtroom and can unknowingly wind up next to a juror in an elevator or standing in a hallway, said Laura Postilion, a partner at Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., based in Chicago.

“For instance, a doctor is in an elevator and feels that some witness on the stand was lying,” Ms. Postilion said. “They might be very upset about it and start ranting about a witness lying, not realizing there is a juror is in the elevator with you.”

Physicians should also be cautious when speaking on the phone to their family or friends during a trial break.

“At the Daley Center in downtown Chicago, there are these long corridors and long line of windows; a lot of people will stand there during breaks. A doctor may be talking to his or her spouse and saying, ‘Yeah, this juror is sleeping!’ Jurors are [often] looking for drama. They’re looking for somebody letting their guard down. Hearing a doctor speak badly about them would certainly give them a reason to dislike the physician.”

Ms. Postilion warns against talking about jurors in or outside of the courtroom. This includes parking structures, she said.

Physicians can take additional steps to save themselves from negative judgment from jurors, attorneys say. Even before the trial starts, Ms. Postilion advises clients to make their social media accounts private. Some curious jurors may look up a physician’s social media accounts to learn more about their personal life, political leanings, or social beliefs, which could prejudice them against the doctor, she said.

Once on the stand, the words and tone used are key. The last thing a physician defendant wants is to come across as arrogant or condescending to jurors, said medical liability defense attorney Michael Moroney, of Flynn Watts LLC.

“For instance, a defendant might say, ‘Well, let me make this simple for you,’ as if they’re talking to a bunch of schoolchildren,” he said. “You don’t know who’s on the jury. That type of language can be offensive.”

Ms. Lander counsels her clients to refrain from using the common phrase, “honestly,” before answering questions on the stand.

“Everything you’re saying on the stand is presumed to be honest,” she said. “When you start an answer with, ‘Honestly…’ out of habit, it really does undercut everything that follows and everything else that’s already been said. It suggests that you were not being honest in your other answers.”
 

Attitude, body language speak volumes

Keep in mind that plaintiffs’ attorneys will try their best to rattle physicians on the stand and get them to appear unlikeable, says Mr. Clark, the Houston-based health law attorney. Physicians who lose their cool and begin arguing with attorneys play into their strategy.

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been trained in ways to get under their skin,” he said. “Righteous indignation and annoyance are best left for a rare occasion. Think about how you feel in a social setting when people are bickering in front of you. It’s uncomfortable at best. That’s how a jury feels too.”

Body language is also important, Mr. Clark notes. Physicians should avoid crossed arms, leaning back and rocking, or putting a hand on their mouth while testifying, he said. Many attorneys have practice sessions with their clients and record the interaction so that doctors can watch it and see how they look.

“Know your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Get help from your lawyer and perhaps consultants about how to improve these skills. Practice and preparation are important.”

Ms. Postilion goes over courtroom clothing with physician clients before trial. Anything “too flashy, too high-end, or too dumpy” should be avoided, she said. Getting accustomed to the courtroom and practicing in an empty courtroom are good ways to ensure that a physician’s voice is loud enough and projecting far enough in the courtroom, she adds.

“The doctor should try to be the best version of him- or herself to jurors,” she said. “A jury can pick up someone who’s trying to be something they’re not. A good attorney can help the doctor find the best version of themselves and capitalize on it. What is it that you want the jury to know about your care of the patient? Take that overall feeling and make sure it’s clearly expressed to the jury.”

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

Patients with melanoma who are deficient in vitamin D have significantly worse overall survival than those with higher levels, according to research presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Whereas the 5-year overall survival was 90% when vitamin D serum levels were above a 10 ng/mL threshold, it was 84% when levels fell below it. Notably, the gap in overall survival between those above and below the threshold appeared to widen as time went on.

The research adds to existing evidence that “vitamin D levels can play an important and independent role in patients’ survival outcomes,” study investigator Inés Gracia-Darder, MD, told this news organization. “The important application in clinical practice would be to know if vitamin D supplementation influences the survival of melanoma patients,” said Dr. Gracia-Darder, a clinical specialist in dermatology at the Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Mallorca, Spain.

Dr. Inés Gracia-Darder

Known association, but not much data

“It is not a new finding,” but there are limited data, especially in melanoma, said Julie De Smedt, MD, of KU Leuven, Belgium, who was asked to comment on the results. Other groups have shown, certainly for cancer in general, that vitamin D can have an effect on overall survival.

“Low levels of vitamin D are associated with the pathological parameters of the melanoma, such as the thickness of the tumor,” Dr. De Smedt said in an interview, indicating that it’s not just overall survival that might be affected.

“So we assume that also has an effect on melanoma-specific survival,” she added.

That assumption, however, is not supported by the data Dr. Gracia-Darder presented, as there was no difference in melanoma-specific survival among the two groups of patients that had been studied.
 

Retrospective cohort analysis

Vitamin D levels had been studied in 264 patients who were included in the retrospective cohort analysis. All had invasive melanomas, and all had been seen at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona between January 1998 and June 2021. Their mean age was 57 years, and the median follow-up was 6.7 years.

For inclusion, all patients had to have had their vitamin D levels measured after being diagnosed with melanoma; those with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 serum level of less than 10 ng/mL were deemed to be vitamin D deficient, whereas those with levels of 10 ng/mL and above were deemed normal or insufficient.

A measurement less than 10 ng/mL is considered vitamin D deficiency, Dr. De Smedt said. “But there is a difference between countries, and there’s also a difference between societies,” noting the cut-off used in the lab where she works is 20 ng/mL. This makes it difficult to compare studies, she said.
 

Independent association with overall survival

Seasonal variation in vitamin D levels were considered as a possible confounding factor, but Dr. Gracia-Darder noted that there was a similar distribution of measurements taken between October to March and April to September.

Univariate and multivariate analyses established vitamin D deficiency as being independently associated with overall survival with hazard ratios of 2.34 and 2.45, respectively.

Other predictive factors were having a higher Breslow index, as well as older age and gender.
 

Time to recommend vitamin D supplementation?

So should patients with melanoma have their vitamin D levels routinely checked? And what about advising them to take vitamin D supplements?

“In our practice, we analyze the vitamin D levels of our patients,” Dr. Gracia-Darder said. Patients are told to limit their exposure to the sun because of their skin cancer, so they are very likely to become vitamin D deficient.

While dietary changes or supplements might be suggested, there’s no real evidence to support upping vitamin D levels to date, so “future prospective studies are needed,” Dr. Gracia-Darder added.

Such studies have already started, including one in Italy, one in Australia, and another study that Dr. De Smedt has been involved with for the past few years.

Called the ViDMe study, it’s a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients are being given a high-dose oral vitamin D supplement or placebo once a month for at least 1 year. About 430 patients with a first cutaneous malignant melanoma have been included in the trial, which started in December 2012.

It is hoped that the results will show that the supplementation will have had a protective effect on the risk of relapse and that there will be a correlation between vitamin D levels in the blood and vitamin D receptor immunoreactivity in the tumor.

“The study is still blinded,” Dr. De Smedt said. “We will unblind in the coming months and then at the end of the year, maybe next year, we will have the results.”

The study reported by Dr. Gracia-Darder did not receive any specific funding. Dr. Gracia-Darder disclosed that the melanoma unit where the study was performed receives many grants and funds to carry out research. She reported no other relevant financial relationships. Dr. De Smedt had no relevant financial relationships. The ViDMe study is sponsored by the Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

BARCELONA – Hospitalized patients in the ICU because of an acute COVID-19 infection had significantly fewer thrombotic events and complications when treated with full-dose anticoagulation, compared with patients who received standard-dose anticoagulation prophylaxis, but full-dose anticoagulation also triggered an excess of moderate and severe bleeding events, randomized trial results show.

The new findings from the COVID-PACT trial in an exclusively U.S.-based cohort of 382 on-treatment patients in the ICU with COVID-19 infection may lead to a change in existing guidelines, which currently recommend standard-dose prophylaxis based on results from prior head-to-head comparisons, such as guidelines posted March 2022 from the American Society of Hematology.

The new findings suggest “full-dose anticoagulation should be considered to prevent thrombotic complications in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19” after weighing an individual patient’s risk for both thrombotic events and bleeding, David D. Berg, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Simultaneous with his report at the congress, the results also appeared online in the journal Circulation.

“What the results tell us is that full-dose anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is highly effective for reducing thrombotic complications,” said Dr. Berg, a cardiologist and critical care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

The report’s designated discussant agreed with Dr. Berg’s conclusions.
 

‘Need to replace the guidelines’

“We probably need to replace the guidelines,” said Eduardo Ramacciotti, MD, PhD, MPH, a professor of vascular surgery at Santa Casa School of Medicine, São Paulo. Dr. Ramacciotti praised the study’s design, the endpoints, and the fact that the design excluded patients at high risk for bleeding complications, particularly those with a fibrinogen level below 200 mg/dL (2 g/L).

But other experts questioned the significance of the COVID-PACT results given that the outcomes did not show that full-dose anticoagulation produced incremental improvement in patient survival.

“We should abandon the thought that intensified anticoagulation should be routine, because it did not overall increase the number of patients discharged from the hospital alive,” commented John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, a professor of hematology and thromboembolism at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

“Preventing venous thrombosis is a good thing, but the money is in saving lives and stopping need for ventilation, and we haven’t been successful doing that with an antithrombotic strategy,” said Dr. Eikelboom. “It is useful to prevent venous thrombosis, but we need to look elsewhere to improve the outcomes of [critically ill] patients with COVID-19.”
 

Reducing thromboembolism is a ‘valid goal’

Dr. Berg took a different view. “It’s a valid goal to try to reduce venous thromboembolism complications,” the major benefit seen in his study, he said. “There is clinical significance to reducing thrombotic events in terms of how people feel, their functional status, and their complications. There are a lot of clinically relevant consequences of thrombosis beyond mortality.”

COVID-PACT ran at 34 U.S. centers from August 2020 to March 2022 but stopped short of its enrollment goal of 750 patients because of waning numbers of patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. In addition to randomly assigning patients within 96 hours of their ICU admission to full-dose anticoagulation or to standard-dose antithrombotic prophylaxis, the study included a second, concurrent randomization to the antiplatelet agent clopidogrel (Plavix) or to no antiplatelet drug. Both randomizations used an open-label design.

The results failed to show a discernable effect from adding clopidogrel on both the primary efficacy and primary safety endpoints, adding to accumulated evidence that treatment with an antiplatelet agent, including aspirin, confers no antithrombotic benefit in patients with COVID-19.

The trial’s participants averaged 61 years old, 68% were obese, 59% had hypertension, and 32% had diabetes. The median time after ICU admission when randomized treatment began was 2.1 days, and researchers followed patients for a median of 13 days, including a median time on anticoagulation of 10.6 days.

The trial design allowed clinicians to use either low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin for anticoagulation, and 82% of patients received low molecular weight heparin as their initial treatment. The prespecified design called for an on-treatment analysis because of an anticipated high crossover rate. During the trial, 34% of patients who started on the prophylactic dose switched to full dose, and 17% had the reverse crossover.
 

95% increased win ratio with full dose

The study’s primary efficacy endpoint used a win-ratio analysis that included seven different adverse outcomes that ranged from death from venous or arterial thrombosis to clinically silent deep vein thrombosis. Treatment with full-dose anticoagulation led to a significant 95% increase in win ratio.

Researchers also applied a more conventional time-to-first-event secondary efficacy analysis, which showed that full-dose anticoagulation cut the incidence of an adverse outcome by a significant 44% relative to prophylactic dosing.

The two study groups showed no difference in all-cause death rates. The efficacy advantage of the full-dose regimen was driven by reduced rates of venous thrombotic events, especially a reduction in clinically evident deep vein thrombotic events.

The primary safety endpoint was the rate of fatal or life-threatening bleeding episodes, and while life-threatening bleeds were numerically more common among the full-dose recipients (four events, compared with one event on prophylaxis dosing) the difference was not significant, and no patients died from a bleeding event.
 

More secondary safety bleeds

The safety difference showed up in a secondary measure of bleeding severity, the rate of GUSTO moderate or severe bleeds. These occurred in 15 of the full-dose recipients, compared with 1 patient on the prophylactic dose.

Dr. Berg highlighted that several prior studies have assessed various anticoagulation regimens in critically ill (ICU-admitted and on respiratory or cardiovascular support) patients with COVID-19. For example, two influential reports published in 2021 by the same team of investigators in the New England Journal of Medicine had sharply divergent results.

One multicenter study, which tested full-dose heparin against prophylactic treatment in more than 1,000 critically ill patients, was stopped prematurely because it had not shown a significant difference between the treatment arms. The second study, in more than 2,000 multicenter patients with COVID-19 who did not require critical-level organ support, showed clear superiority of the full-dose heparin regimen.

Notably, both previous studies used a different primary efficacy endpoint than the COVID-PACT study. The earlier reports both measured efficacy in terms of patients being alive and off organ support by 21 days from randomization.
 

Patients to exclude

Although Dr. Berg stressed the clear positive result, he also cautioned that they should not apply to patients excluded from the study: those with severe coagulopathies, those with severe thrombocytopenia, and patients already maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. He also cautioned against using the full-dose strategy in elderly patients, because in COVID-PACT, those who developed bleeding complications tended to be older.

Dr. Berg also noted that heparin prophylaxis is a well-established intervention for ICU-admitted patients without COVID-19 for the purpose of preventing venous thromboembolisms without evidence that this approach reduces deaths or organ failure.

But he conceded that “the priority of treatment depends on whether it saves lives, so anticoagulation is probably not as high a priority as other effective treatments” that reduce mortality. “Preventing venous thromboembolism has rarely been shown to have a mortality benefit,” Dr. Berg noted.

COVID-PACT received no direct commercial funding. Dr. Berg has been a consultant to AstraZeneca, Mobility Bio, and Youngene Therapeutics, and he participated in a trial sponsored by Kowa. Dr. Ramacciotti has been a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Aspen, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Mylan, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and he has received research support from Bayer, Esperon, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr. Eikelboom has received honoraria and research support from Bayer.

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

Fort Worth, Tex. – A case decision made by Texas U.S. District Judge Reed Charles O’Connor that will allow employers to deny health care insurance coverage for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is already provoking HIV activists, medical associations, nonprofits, and patients.

As this news organization first reported in August, the class action suit (Kelley v. Azar) has a broader goal – to dismantle the Affordable Care Act using the argument that many of the preventive services it covers, including PrEP, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Judge O’Connor has a long history of issuing rulings against the Affordable Care Act and LGBT individuals, and we expect the case to be successfully appealed as has been the case with his previous discriminatory decisions,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute in Washington, in a prepared statement issued shortly after the ruling.

“To single out PrEP, which are FDA approved drugs that effectively prevent HIV, and conclude that its coverage violates the religious freedom of certain individuals, is plain wrong, highly discriminatory, and impedes the public health of our nation,” he said. 

PrEP is not just for men who have sex with men. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 million Americans could benefit from PrEP, and roughly 20% are heterosexual women – a fact both Mr. Schmid and the HIV Medicine Association pointed out in response to Judge O’Connor’s ruling.

“Denying access to PrEP threatens the health of more than 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from this potentially life saving intervention,” stated Marwan Haddad, MD, MPH, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, in a press release issued by the organization.

“This ruling is yet one more instance of unacceptable interference in scientific, evidence-based health care practices that must remain within the sanctity of the provider-patient relationship,” she said.

The ruling is also outside what is normally considered religious “conscientious objection.”

While the American Medical Association supports the rights of physicians to act in accordance with conscience, medical ethicists like Abram Brummett, PhD, assistant professor, department of foundational medical studies, Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., previously told this news organization that this ruling actually reflects a phenomenon known as “conscience creep” – that is, the way conscientious objection creeps outside traditional contexts like abortion, sterilization, and organ transplantation.

Incidentally, the case is not yet completed; Judge O’Connor still has to decide on challenges to contraceptives and HPV mandates. He has requested that defendants and plaintiffs file a supplemental briefing before he makes a final decision.

Regardless of how it plays out, it is unclear whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will appeal.

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

Fort Worth, Tex. – A case decision made by Texas U.S. District Judge Reed Charles O’Connor that will allow employers to deny health care insurance coverage for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is already provoking HIV activists, medical associations, nonprofits, and patients.

As this news organization first reported in August, the class action suit (Kelley v. Azar) has a broader goal – to dismantle the Affordable Care Act using the argument that many of the preventive services it covers, including PrEP, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Judge O’Connor has a long history of issuing rulings against the Affordable Care Act and LGBT individuals, and we expect the case to be successfully appealed as has been the case with his previous discriminatory decisions,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute in Washington, in a prepared statement issued shortly after the ruling.

“To single out PrEP, which are FDA approved drugs that effectively prevent HIV, and conclude that its coverage violates the religious freedom of certain individuals, is plain wrong, highly discriminatory, and impedes the public health of our nation,” he said. 

PrEP is not just for men who have sex with men. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 million Americans could benefit from PrEP, and roughly 20% are heterosexual women – a fact both Mr. Schmid and the HIV Medicine Association pointed out in response to Judge O’Connor’s ruling.

“Denying access to PrEP threatens the health of more than 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from this potentially life saving intervention,” stated Marwan Haddad, MD, MPH, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, in a press release issued by the organization.

“This ruling is yet one more instance of unacceptable interference in scientific, evidence-based health care practices that must remain within the sanctity of the provider-patient relationship,” she said.

The ruling is also outside what is normally considered religious “conscientious objection.”

While the American Medical Association supports the rights of physicians to act in accordance with conscience, medical ethicists like Abram Brummett, PhD, assistant professor, department of foundational medical studies, Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., previously told this news organization that this ruling actually reflects a phenomenon known as “conscience creep” – that is, the way conscientious objection creeps outside traditional contexts like abortion, sterilization, and organ transplantation.

Incidentally, the case is not yet completed; Judge O’Connor still has to decide on challenges to contraceptives and HPV mandates. He has requested that defendants and plaintiffs file a supplemental briefing before he makes a final decision.

Regardless of how it plays out, it is unclear whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will appeal.

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

Fort Worth, Tex. – A case decision made by Texas U.S. District Judge Reed Charles O’Connor that will allow employers to deny health care insurance coverage for HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is already provoking HIV activists, medical associations, nonprofits, and patients.

As this news organization first reported in August, the class action suit (Kelley v. Azar) has a broader goal – to dismantle the Affordable Care Act using the argument that many of the preventive services it covers, including PrEP, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Judge O’Connor has a long history of issuing rulings against the Affordable Care Act and LGBT individuals, and we expect the case to be successfully appealed as has been the case with his previous discriminatory decisions,” said Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute in Washington, in a prepared statement issued shortly after the ruling.

“To single out PrEP, which are FDA approved drugs that effectively prevent HIV, and conclude that its coverage violates the religious freedom of certain individuals, is plain wrong, highly discriminatory, and impedes the public health of our nation,” he said. 

PrEP is not just for men who have sex with men. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 million Americans could benefit from PrEP, and roughly 20% are heterosexual women – a fact both Mr. Schmid and the HIV Medicine Association pointed out in response to Judge O’Connor’s ruling.

“Denying access to PrEP threatens the health of more than 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from this potentially life saving intervention,” stated Marwan Haddad, MD, MPH, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, in a press release issued by the organization.

“This ruling is yet one more instance of unacceptable interference in scientific, evidence-based health care practices that must remain within the sanctity of the provider-patient relationship,” she said.

The ruling is also outside what is normally considered religious “conscientious objection.”

While the American Medical Association supports the rights of physicians to act in accordance with conscience, medical ethicists like Abram Brummett, PhD, assistant professor, department of foundational medical studies, Oakland University, Rochester, Mich., previously told this news organization that this ruling actually reflects a phenomenon known as “conscience creep” – that is, the way conscientious objection creeps outside traditional contexts like abortion, sterilization, and organ transplantation.

Incidentally, the case is not yet completed; Judge O’Connor still has to decide on challenges to contraceptives and HPV mandates. He has requested that defendants and plaintiffs file a supplemental briefing before he makes a final decision.

Regardless of how it plays out, it is unclear whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will appeal.

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

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) levels should be measured in clinical practice to refine risk prediction for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and inform treatment decisions, even if they cannot yet be lowered directly, recommends the National Lipid Association (NLA) in a scientific statement.

The statement was published in the Journal of Clinical Lipidology.

Don P. Wilson, MD, department of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes, Cook Children’s Medical Center, Fort Worth, Tex., told this news organization that lipoprotein(a) is a “very timely subject.”

“The question in the scientific community is: What role does that particular biomarker play in terms of causing serious heart disease, stroke, and calcification of the aortic valve?”

“It’s pretty clear that, in and of itself, it actually can contribute and or cause any of those conditions,” he added. “The thing that’s then sort of problematic is that we don’t have a specific treatment to lower” Lp(a).

However, Dr. Wilson said that the statement underlines it is “still worth knowing” an individual’s Lp(a) concentrations because the risk with increased levels is “even higher for those people who have other conditions, such as metabolic disease or diabetes or high cholesterol.”

There are nevertheless several drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that appear to have the potential to significantly lower Lp(a) levels.

“I’m very excited,” said Dr. Wilson, noting that, so far, the drugs seem to be “quite safe,” and the currently available data suggest that they can “reduce Lp(a) levels by about 90%, which is huge.”

“That’s better than any drug we’ve got on the market.”

He cautioned, however, that it is going to take time after the drugs are approved to see the real benefits and risks once they start being used in very large populations, given that raised Lp(a) concentrations are present in about 20% of the world population.

The publication of the NLA statement coincides with a similar one from the European Atherosclerosis Society presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress 2022 on Aug. 29, and published simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.

Coauthor of the EAS statement, Alberico L. Catapano, MD, PhD, professor of pharmacology at the University of Milan, and past president of the EAS, said that there are many areas in which the two statements are “in complete agreement.”

“However, the spirit of the documents is different,” he continued, chief among them being that the EAS statement focuses on the “global risk” of ASCVD and provides a risk calculator to help balance the risk increase with Lp(a) with that from other factors.

Another is that increased Lp(a) levels are recognized as being on a continuum in terms of their risk, such that there is no level at which raised concentrations can be deemed safe.

Dr. Wilson agreed with Dr. Capatano’s assessment, saying that the EAS statement takes current scientific observations “a step further,” in part by emphasizing that Lp(a) is “only one piece of the puzzle” for determining an individuals’ cardiovascular risk.

This will have huge implications for the conversations clinicians have with patients over shared decision-making, Dr. Wilson added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Catapano underlined to this news organization that “both documents are very important” in terms of the need to “raise awareness about a causal risk factor” for cardiovascular disease as well as that modifying Lp(a) concentrations “will probably reduce the risk.”

The statement from the NLA builds on the association’s prior Recommendations for the Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, published in two parts in 2014 and 2015, and comes to many of the same conclusions as the EAS statement.

It explains that apolipoprotein A, a component of Lp(a) attached to apolipoprotein B, has “unique” properties that promote the “initiation and progression of atherosclerosis and calcific valvular aortic stenosis, through endothelial dysfunction and proinflammatory responses, and pro-osteogenic effects promoting calcification.”

This, in turn, has the potential to cause myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, the authors note.

This has been confirmed in meta-analyses of prospective, population-based studies showing a high risk for MI, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke with high Lp(a) levels, the statement adds.

Moreover, large genetic studies have confirmed that Lp(a) is a causal factor, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, for MI, ischemic stroke, valvular aortic stenosis, coronary artery stenosis, carotid stenosis, femoral artery stenosis, heart failure, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Like the authors of the EAS statement, the NLA statement authors underline that the measurement of Lp(a) is “currently not standardized or harmonized,” and there is insufficient evidence on the utility of different cut-offs for risk based on age, gender, ethnicity, or the presence of comorbid conditions.

However, they do suggest that Lp(a) levels greater than 50 mg/dL (> 100 nmol/L) may be considered as a risk-enhancing factor favoring the initiation of statin therapy, although they note that the threshold could be threefold higher in African American individuals.

Despite these reservations, the authors say that Lp(a) testing “is reasonable” for refining the risk assessment of ASCVD in the first-degree relatives of people with premature ASCVD and those with a personal history of premature disease as well as in individuals with primary severe hypercholesterolemia.

Testing also “may be reasonable” to “aid in the clinician-patient discussion about whether to prescribe a statin” in people aged 40-75 years with borderline 10-year ASCVD risk, defined as 5%-7.4%, as well as in other equivocal clinical situations.

In terms of what to do in an individual with raised Lp(a) levels, the statement notes that lifestyle therapy and statins do not decrease Lp(a).

Although lomitapide (Juxtapid) and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors both lower levels of the lipoprotein, the former is “not recommended for ASCVD risk reduction,” whereas the impact of the latter on ASCVD risk reduction via Lp(a) reduction “remains undetermined.”

Several experimental agents are currently under investigation to reduce Lp(a) levels, including SLN360 (Silence Therapeutics), and AKCEA-APO(a)-LRX (Akcea Therapeutics/Ionis Pharmaceuticals).

In the meantime, the authors say it is reasonable to use Lp(a) as a “risk-enhancing factor” for the initiation of moderate- or high-intensity statins in the primary prevention of ASCVD and to consider the addition of ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors in high- and very high–risk patients already on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Finally, the authors recognize the need for “additional evidence” to support clinical practice. In the absence of a randomized clinical trial of Lp(a) lowering in those who are at risk for ASCVD, they note that “several important unanswered questions remain.”

These include: “Is it reasonable to recommend universal testing of Lp(a) in everyone regardless of family history or health status at least once to help encourage healthy habits and inform clinical decision-making?” “Will earlier testing and effective interventions help to improve outcomes?”

Alongside more evidence in children, the authors also emphasize that “additional data are urgently needed in Blacks, South Asians, and those of Hispanic descent.”

No funding declared. Dr. Wilson declares relationships with Osler Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Novo Nordisk, and Alexion Pharmaceuticals. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. Dr. Catapano declares a relationship with Novartis.

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A panel of infectious disease experts shared their take recently on the importance of the newly approved bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, why authorization without human data is not for them a cause for alarm, and what they are most optimistic about at this stage of the pandemic.

“I’m very encouraged by this new development,” Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, said during a media briefing sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

It makes sense to develop a vaccine that targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and Omicron BA.4 and BA.5, she said. “It does seem that if you have a circulating strain BA.4 and BA.5, hitting it with the appropriate vaccine targeted for that is most immunogenic, certainly. We will hopefully see that in terms of effectiveness.”

Changing the vaccines at this point is appropriate, Walter A. Orenstein, MD, said. “One of our challenges is that this virus mutates. Our immune response is focused on an area of the virus that can change and be evaded,” said Dr. Orenstein, professor and associate director of the Emory Vaccine Center at Emory University, Atlanta.

“This is different than measles or polio,” he said. “But for influenza and now with SARS-CoV-2 ... we have to update our vaccines, because the virus changes.”
 

Man versus mouse

Dr. Edwards addressed the controversy over a lack of human data specific to these next-generation Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines. “I do not want people to be unhappy or worried that the bivalent vaccine will act in a different way than the ones that we have been administering for the past 2 years.”

The Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization may have relied primarily on animal studies, she said, but mice given a vaccine specific to BA.4 and BA.5 “have a much more robust immune response,” compared with those given a BA.1 vaccine.

Also, “over and over and over again we have seen with these SARS-CoV-2 vaccines that the mouse responses mirror the human responses,” said Dr. Edwards, scientific director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and an IDSA fellow.

“Human data will be coming very soon to look at the immunogenicity,” she said.
 

A ‘glass half full’ perspective

When asked what they are most optimistic about at this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Orenstein said, “I’m really positive in the sense that the vaccines we have are already very effective against severe disease, death, and hospitalization. I feel really good about that. And we have great tools.

“The bottom line for me is, I want to get it myself,” he said regarding the bivalent vaccine.

“There are a lot of things to be happy with,” Dr. Edwards said. “I’m kind of a glass-half-full kind of person.”

Dr. Edwards is confident that the surveillance systems now in place can accurately detect major changes in the virus, including new variants. She is also optimistic about the mRNA technology that allows rapid updates to COVID-19 vaccines.

Furthermore, “I’m happy that we’re beginning to open up – that we can go do different things that we have done in the past and feel much more comfortable,” she said.
 

More motivational messaging needed

Now is also a good time to renew efforts to get people vaccinated.

“We invested a lot into developing these vaccines, but I think we also need to invest in what I call ‘implementation science research,’ ” Dr. Orenstein said, the goal being to convince people to get vaccinated.

He pointed out that it’s vaccinations, not vaccines, that saves lives. “Vaccine doses that remain in the vial are 0% effective.

“When I was director of the United States’ immunization program at the CDC,” Dr. Orenstein said, “my director of communications used to say that you need the right message delivered by the right messenger through the right communications channel.”

Dr. Edwards agreed that listening to people’s concerns and respecting their questions are important. “We also need to make sure that we use the proper messenger, just as Walt said. Maybe the proper messenger isn’t an old gray-haired lady,” she said, referring to herself, “but it’s someone that lives in your community or is your primary care doctor who has taken care of you or your children for many years.”

Research on how to better motivate people to get vaccinated is warranted, Dr. Edwards said, as well as on “how to make sure that this is really a medical issue and not a political issue. That’s been a really big problem.”

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

A 74-YEAR-OLD WOMAN presented with a 3-day history of an intensely pruritic rash that was localized to her upper arms, upper chest between her breasts, and upper back. The pruritus was much worse at night while the patient was in bed. Symptoms did not improve with over-the-counter topical corticosteroids.

The patient had a history of atrial fibrillation (for which she was receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy), hypertension, an implanted pacemaker, depression, and Parkinson disease. Her medications included carbidopa-levodopa, fluoxetine, hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol tartrate, naproxen, and warfarin. She had no known allergies. She reported that she was a nonsmoker and drank 1 glass of wine per week.

There were no recent changes in soaps, detergents, lotions, or makeup, nor did the patient have any bug bites or plant exposure. She shared a home with her spouse and several pets: a dog, a cat, and a Bantam-breed chicken. The patient’s husband, who slept in a different bedroom, had no rash. Recently, the cat had been bringing its captured prey of rabbits into the home.

Review of systems was negative for fever, chills, shortness of breath, cough, throat swelling, and rhinorrhea. Physical examination revealed red/pink macules and papules scattered over the upper arms (FIGURE 1), chest, and upper back. Many lesions were excoriated but had no active bleeding or vesicles. Under dermatoscope, no burrowing was found; however, a small (< 1 mm) creature was seen moving rapidly across the skin surface. The physician (CTW) captured and isolated the creature using a sterile lab cup.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The collected sample (FIGURE 2) was examined and identified as an avian mite by a colleague who specializes in entomology, confirming the diagnosis of gamasoidosis. Also known as avian mite dermatitis, gamasoidosis occurs after human contact with infested birds. The true incidence of gamasoidosis is unknown due to the condition being underreported or undiagnosed because of its uncommon origin.¹

The mainstay of treatment is the removal of the infested bird, decontamination of bedding and clothing, and the use of antihistamines and topical corticosteroids.

Two genera of avian mites are responsible: Dermanyssus and Ornithonyssus. The most common culprits are the red poultry mite (D gallinae) and the northern fowl mite (O bursa). These small mites parasitize birds, such as poultry livestock, domesticated birds, and wild game birds. When unfed, the mite appears translucent brown and measures 0.3 to 0.7 mm in length, but after a blood meal, it appears red and increases in size to 1 mm. The mites tend to be active and feed at night and hide during the day.² This explained the severe nighttime pruritus in this case.

Human infestation, although infrequent, can be a concern for those who work with poultry, or during the spring and summer seasons when young birds leave their nests and the mites migrate to find alternative hosts.³ The 1- to 2-mm erythematous maculopapules are often found with excoriations in covered areas.^3,4 Unlike scabies, the genitalia and interdigital areas are spared.^3,5

Differential for arthropod dermatoses

The differential diagnosis includes cimicosis, pulicosis, pediculosis corporis, and scabies.

Cimicosis is caused by bed bugs (from the insect Cimex genus). Bed bugs are oval and reddish brown, have 6 legs, and range in size from 1 to 7 mm. Most bed bugs hide in cracks or crevices of furniture and other surfaces (eg, bed frames, headboards, seams or holes of box springs or mattresses, or behind wallpaper, switch plates, and picture frames) by day and come out at night to feed on a sleeping host. Commonly, bed bugs will leave a series of bites grouped in rows (described as “breakfast, lunch, and dinner”). The bites can mimic urticaria, and bullous reactions may also occur.²

Continue to: Pulicosis

Pulicosis results from bites caused by a variety of flea species including, but not limited to, human, dog, oriental rat, sticktight, mouse, and chicken fleas. Fleas are small brown insects measuring about 2.5 mm in length, with flat sides and long hind legs. Their bites are most often arranged in a zigzag pattern around a host’s legs and waist. Hypersensitivity reactions may appear as papular urticaria, nodules, or bullae.²

Pediculosis corporis is caused by body lice. The adult louse is 2.5 to 3.5 mm in size, has 6 legs, and is a tan to greyish white color.⁶ Lice live in clothing, lay their eggs within the seams, and obtain blood meals from the host. Symptoms include generalized itching. The erythematous blue- and copper-colored macules, wheals, and lichenification can occur throughout the body, but spare the hands and feet. Secondary impetigo and furunculosis commonly occur.²

Scabies is caused by an oval mite that is ventrally flat, with dorsal spines. The mite is < 0.5 mm in size, appearing as a pinpoint of white. It burrows into its host’s skin, where it lives and lays eggs, causing pruritic papular lesions and ensuing excoriations. The mite burrows with a predilection for the finger web spaces, wrists, axillae, areolae, umbilicus, lower abdomen, genitals, and buttocks.²

Treatment involves a 3-step process

The mainstay of treatment is removal of the infested bird, decontamination of bedding and clothing, and use of oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids.^1,3,5 Bedding and clothing should be washed. Carpets, rugs, and curtains should be vacuumed and the vacuum bag placed in a sealed bag in the freezer for several hours before it can be thrown away. Eggs, larvae, nymphs, and adults are killed at 55 to 60 °F. Because humans are only incidental hosts and mites do not reproduce on them, the use of scabicidal agents, such as permethrin, is controversial.

Our patient was treated with permethrin cream before definitive identification of the mite. Once the mite was identified, the chicken was removed from the home and the patient’s bedding and clothing were decontaminated. The patient continued to apply over-the-counter topical steroids and take oral antihistamines for several more days after the chicken was removed from the home.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Patrick Liesch of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Department of Entomology, Insect Diagnostic Lab, for his help in identifying the avian mite.

A 74-YEAR-OLD WOMAN presented with a 3-day history of an intensely pruritic rash that was localized to her upper arms, upper chest between her breasts, and upper back. The pruritus was much worse at night while the patient was in bed. Symptoms did not improve with over-the-counter topical corticosteroids.

The patient had a history of atrial fibrillation (for which she was receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy), hypertension, an implanted pacemaker, depression, and Parkinson disease. Her medications included carbidopa-levodopa, fluoxetine, hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol tartrate, naproxen, and warfarin. She had no known allergies. She reported that she was a nonsmoker and drank 1 glass of wine per week.

There were no recent changes in soaps, detergents, lotions, or makeup, nor did the patient have any bug bites or plant exposure. She shared a home with her spouse and several pets: a dog, a cat, and a Bantam-breed chicken. The patient’s husband, who slept in a different bedroom, had no rash. Recently, the cat had been bringing its captured prey of rabbits into the home.

Review of systems was negative for fever, chills, shortness of breath, cough, throat swelling, and rhinorrhea. Physical examination revealed red/pink macules and papules scattered over the upper arms (FIGURE 1), chest, and upper back. Many lesions were excoriated but had no active bleeding or vesicles. Under dermatoscope, no burrowing was found; however, a small (< 1 mm) creature was seen moving rapidly across the skin surface. The physician (CTW) captured and isolated the creature using a sterile lab cup.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The collected sample (FIGURE 2) was examined and identified as an avian mite by a colleague who specializes in entomology, confirming the diagnosis of gamasoidosis. Also known as avian mite dermatitis, gamasoidosis occurs after human contact with infested birds. The true incidence of gamasoidosis is unknown due to the condition being underreported or undiagnosed because of its uncommon origin.¹

The mainstay of treatment is the removal of the infested bird, decontamination of bedding and clothing, and the use of antihistamines and topical corticosteroids.

Two genera of avian mites are responsible: Dermanyssus and Ornithonyssus. The most common culprits are the red poultry mite (D gallinae) and the northern fowl mite (O bursa). These small mites parasitize birds, such as poultry livestock, domesticated birds, and wild game birds. When unfed, the mite appears translucent brown and measures 0.3 to 0.7 mm in length, but after a blood meal, it appears red and increases in size to 1 mm. The mites tend to be active and feed at night and hide during the day.² This explained the severe nighttime pruritus in this case.

Human infestation, although infrequent, can be a concern for those who work with poultry, or during the spring and summer seasons when young birds leave their nests and the mites migrate to find alternative hosts.³ The 1- to 2-mm erythematous maculopapules are often found with excoriations in covered areas.^3,4 Unlike scabies, the genitalia and interdigital areas are spared.^3,5

Differential for arthropod dermatoses

The differential diagnosis includes cimicosis, pulicosis, pediculosis corporis, and scabies.

Cimicosis is caused by bed bugs (from the insect Cimex genus). Bed bugs are oval and reddish brown, have 6 legs, and range in size from 1 to 7 mm. Most bed bugs hide in cracks or crevices of furniture and other surfaces (eg, bed frames, headboards, seams or holes of box springs or mattresses, or behind wallpaper, switch plates, and picture frames) by day and come out at night to feed on a sleeping host. Commonly, bed bugs will leave a series of bites grouped in rows (described as “breakfast, lunch, and dinner”). The bites can mimic urticaria, and bullous reactions may also occur.²

Continue to: Pulicosis

Pulicosis results from bites caused by a variety of flea species including, but not limited to, human, dog, oriental rat, sticktight, mouse, and chicken fleas. Fleas are small brown insects measuring about 2.5 mm in length, with flat sides and long hind legs. Their bites are most often arranged in a zigzag pattern around a host’s legs and waist. Hypersensitivity reactions may appear as papular urticaria, nodules, or bullae.²

Pediculosis corporis is caused by body lice. The adult louse is 2.5 to 3.5 mm in size, has 6 legs, and is a tan to greyish white color.⁶ Lice live in clothing, lay their eggs within the seams, and obtain blood meals from the host. Symptoms include generalized itching. The erythematous blue- and copper-colored macules, wheals, and lichenification can occur throughout the body, but spare the hands and feet. Secondary impetigo and furunculosis commonly occur.²

Scabies is caused by an oval mite that is ventrally flat, with dorsal spines. The mite is < 0.5 mm in size, appearing as a pinpoint of white. It burrows into its host’s skin, where it lives and lays eggs, causing pruritic papular lesions and ensuing excoriations. The mite burrows with a predilection for the finger web spaces, wrists, axillae, areolae, umbilicus, lower abdomen, genitals, and buttocks.²

Treatment involves a 3-step process

The mainstay of treatment is removal of the infested bird, decontamination of bedding and clothing, and use of oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids.^1,3,5 Bedding and clothing should be washed. Carpets, rugs, and curtains should be vacuumed and the vacuum bag placed in a sealed bag in the freezer for several hours before it can be thrown away. Eggs, larvae, nymphs, and adults are killed at 55 to 60 °F. Because humans are only incidental hosts and mites do not reproduce on them, the use of scabicidal agents, such as permethrin, is controversial.

Our patient was treated with permethrin cream before definitive identification of the mite. Once the mite was identified, the chicken was removed from the home and the patient’s bedding and clothing were decontaminated. The patient continued to apply over-the-counter topical steroids and take oral antihistamines for several more days after the chicken was removed from the home.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Patrick Liesch of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Department of Entomology, Insect Diagnostic Lab, for his help in identifying the avian mite.

A 74-YEAR-OLD WOMAN presented with a 3-day history of an intensely pruritic rash that was localized to her upper arms, upper chest between her breasts, and upper back. The pruritus was much worse at night while the patient was in bed. Symptoms did not improve with over-the-counter topical corticosteroids.

The patient had a history of atrial fibrillation (for which she was receiving chronic anticoagulation therapy), hypertension, an implanted pacemaker, depression, and Parkinson disease. Her medications included carbidopa-levodopa, fluoxetine, hydrochlorothiazide, metoprolol tartrate, naproxen, and warfarin. She had no known allergies. She reported that she was a nonsmoker and drank 1 glass of wine per week.

There were no recent changes in soaps, detergents, lotions, or makeup, nor did the patient have any bug bites or plant exposure. She shared a home with her spouse and several pets: a dog, a cat, and a Bantam-breed chicken. The patient’s husband, who slept in a different bedroom, had no rash. Recently, the cat had been bringing its captured prey of rabbits into the home.

Review of systems was negative for fever, chills, shortness of breath, cough, throat swelling, and rhinorrhea. Physical examination revealed red/pink macules and papules scattered over the upper arms (FIGURE 1), chest, and upper back. Many lesions were excoriated but had no active bleeding or vesicles. Under dermatoscope, no burrowing was found; however, a small (< 1 mm) creature was seen moving rapidly across the skin surface. The physician (CTW) captured and isolated the creature using a sterile lab cup.

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The collected sample (FIGURE 2) was examined and identified as an avian mite by a colleague who specializes in entomology, confirming the diagnosis of gamasoidosis. Also known as avian mite dermatitis, gamasoidosis occurs after human contact with infested birds. The true incidence of gamasoidosis is unknown due to the condition being underreported or undiagnosed because of its uncommon origin.¹

The mainstay of treatment is the removal of the infested bird, decontamination of bedding and clothing, and the use of antihistamines and topical corticosteroids.

Two genera of avian mites are responsible: Dermanyssus and Ornithonyssus. The most common culprits are the red poultry mite (D gallinae) and the northern fowl mite (O bursa). These small mites parasitize birds, such as poultry livestock, domesticated birds, and wild game birds. When unfed, the mite appears translucent brown and measures 0.3 to 0.7 mm in length, but after a blood meal, it appears red and increases in size to 1 mm. The mites tend to be active and feed at night and hide during the day.² This explained the severe nighttime pruritus in this case.

Human infestation, although infrequent, can be a concern for those who work with poultry, or during the spring and summer seasons when young birds leave their nests and the mites migrate to find alternative hosts.³ The 1- to 2-mm erythematous maculopapules are often found with excoriations in covered areas.^3,4 Unlike scabies, the genitalia and interdigital areas are spared.^3,5

Differential for arthropod dermatoses

The differential diagnosis includes cimicosis, pulicosis, pediculosis corporis, and scabies.

Cimicosis is caused by bed bugs (from the insect Cimex genus). Bed bugs are oval and reddish brown, have 6 legs, and range in size from 1 to 7 mm. Most bed bugs hide in cracks or crevices of furniture and other surfaces (eg, bed frames, headboards, seams or holes of box springs or mattresses, or behind wallpaper, switch plates, and picture frames) by day and come out at night to feed on a sleeping host. Commonly, bed bugs will leave a series of bites grouped in rows (described as “breakfast, lunch, and dinner”). The bites can mimic urticaria, and bullous reactions may also occur.²

Continue to: Pulicosis

Pulicosis results from bites caused by a variety of flea species including, but not limited to, human, dog, oriental rat, sticktight, mouse, and chicken fleas. Fleas are small brown insects measuring about 2.5 mm in length, with flat sides and long hind legs. Their bites are most often arranged in a zigzag pattern around a host’s legs and waist. Hypersensitivity reactions may appear as papular urticaria, nodules, or bullae.²

Pediculosis corporis is caused by body lice. The adult louse is 2.5 to 3.5 mm in size, has 6 legs, and is a tan to greyish white color.⁶ Lice live in clothing, lay their eggs within the seams, and obtain blood meals from the host. Symptoms include generalized itching. The erythematous blue- and copper-colored macules, wheals, and lichenification can occur throughout the body, but spare the hands and feet. Secondary impetigo and furunculosis commonly occur.²

Scabies is caused by an oval mite that is ventrally flat, with dorsal spines. The mite is < 0.5 mm in size, appearing as a pinpoint of white. It burrows into its host’s skin, where it lives and lays eggs, causing pruritic papular lesions and ensuing excoriations. The mite burrows with a predilection for the finger web spaces, wrists, axillae, areolae, umbilicus, lower abdomen, genitals, and buttocks.²

Treatment involves a 3-step process

The mainstay of treatment is removal of the infested bird, decontamination of bedding and clothing, and use of oral antihistamines and topical corticosteroids.^1,3,5 Bedding and clothing should be washed. Carpets, rugs, and curtains should be vacuumed and the vacuum bag placed in a sealed bag in the freezer for several hours before it can be thrown away. Eggs, larvae, nymphs, and adults are killed at 55 to 60 °F. Because humans are only incidental hosts and mites do not reproduce on them, the use of scabicidal agents, such as permethrin, is controversial.

Our patient was treated with permethrin cream before definitive identification of the mite. Once the mite was identified, the chicken was removed from the home and the patient’s bedding and clothing were decontaminated. The patient continued to apply over-the-counter topical steroids and take oral antihistamines for several more days after the chicken was removed from the home.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Patrick Liesch of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Department of Entomology, Insect Diagnostic Lab, for his help in identifying the avian mite.