Cardiology News

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to access@webmd.net.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to access@webmd.net.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I sincerely believe that what goes around comes around. Good things come to good people. And sometimes that saves lives.

My 10-year-old son was in the semifinals of the Little League district championship. And we were losing. My son is an excellent pitcher, and he had started the game. But that night, he was struggling. He just couldn’t find where to throw the ball. Needless to say, he was frustrated.

He was changed to shortstop in the second inning, and the home plate umpire walked over to him. This umpire is well known in the area for his kindness and commitment, how he encourages the kids and helps make baseball fun even when it’s stressful.

We didn’t know him well, but he was really supportive of my kid in that moment, talking to him about how baseball is a team sport and we’re here to have fun. Just being really positive.

As the game continued, I saw the umpire suddenly walk to the side of the field. I hadn’t seen it, but he had been hit by a wild pitch on the side of his neck. He was wearing protective gear, but the ball managed to bounce up the side and caught bare neck. I knew something wasn’t right.

I went down to talk to him, and my medical assistant (MA), who was also at the game, came with me. I could tell the umpire was injured, but he didn’t want to leave the game. I suggested going to the hospital, but he wouldn’t consider it. So I sat there with my arms crossed, watching him.

His symptoms got worse. I could see he was in pain, and it was getting harder for him to speak. My concern was that there was a tracheal injury, a carotid injury, or something of that nature that was expanding.

Again, I strongly urged him to go to the hospital, but again, he said no.

In the sixth inning, things got bad enough that the umpire finally agreed to leave the game. As I was figuring out how to get him to the hospital, he disappeared on me. He had walked up to the second floor of the snack shack. My MA and I got him back downstairs and sat him on a bench behind home plate.

We were in the process of calling 911 ... when he arrested.

Luckily, when he lost vital signs, my MA and I were standing right next to him. We were able to activate ACLS protocol and start CPR within seconds.

Many times in these critical situations — especially if people are scared or have never seen an emergency like this — there’s the potential for chaos. Well, that was the polar opposite of what happened.

As soon as I started to run the code, there was this sense of order. People were keeping their composure and following directions. My MA and I would say, “this is what we need,” and the task would immediately be assigned to someone. It was quiet. There was no yelling. Everyone trusted me, even though some of them had never met me before. It was so surprising. I remember thinking, we’re running an arrest, but it’s so calm.

We were an organized team, and it really worked like clockwork, which was remarkable given where we were. It’s one thing to be in the hospital for an event like that. But to be on a baseball field where you have nothing is a completely different scenario.

Meanwhile, the game went on.

I had requested that all the kids be placed in the dugout when they weren’t on the field. So they saw the umpire walk off, but none of them saw him arrest. Some parents were really helpful with making sure the kids were okay.

The president of Oxford Little League ran across the street to a fire station to get an AED. But the fire department personnel were out on a call. He had to break down the door.

By the time he got back, the umpire’s vital signs were returning. And then EMS arrived.

They loaded him in the ambulance, and I called ahead to the trauma team, so they knew exactly what was happening.

I was pretty worried. My hypothesis was that there was probably compression on the vasculature, which had caused him to lose his vital signs. I thought he probably had an impending airway loss. I wasn’t sure if he was going to make it through the night.

What I didn’t know was that while I was giving CPR, my son stole home, and we won the game. As the ambulance was leaving, the celebration was going on in the outfield.

The umpire was in the hospital for several days. Early on, I got permission from his family to visit him. The first time I saw him, I felt this incredible gratitude and peace.

My dad was an ER doctor, and growing up, it seemed like every time we went on a family vacation, there was an emergency. We would be near a car accident or something, and my father would fly in and save the day. I remember being on the Autobahn somewhere in Europe, and there was a devastating accident between a car and a motorcycle. My father stabilized the guy, had him airlifted out, and apparently, he did fine. I grew up watching things like this and thinking, wow, that’s incredible.

Fast forward to 2 years ago, my father was diagnosed with a lung cancer he never should have had. He never smoked. As a cancer surgeon, I know we did everything in our power to save him. But it didn’t happen. He passed away.

I realize this is superstitious, but seeing the umpire alive, I had this feeling that somehow my dad was there. It was bittersweet but also a joyful moment — like I could breathe again.

I met the umpire’s family that first time, and it was like meeting family that you didn’t know you had but now you have forever. Even though the event was traumatic — I’m still trying not to be on high alert every time I go to a game — it felt like a gift to be part of this journey with them.

Little League’s mission is to teach kids about teamwork, leadership, and making good choices so communities are stronger. Our umpire is a guy who does that every day. He’s not a Little League umpire because he makes any money. He shows up at every single game to support these kids and engage them, to model respect, gratitude, and kindness.

I think our obligation as people is to live with intentionality. We all need to make sure we leave the world a better place, even when we are called upon to do uncomfortable things. Our umpire showed our kids what that looks like, and in that moment when he could have died, we were able to do the same for him.

Jennifer LaFemina, MD, is a surgical oncologist at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Massachusetts.
 

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to access@webmd.net.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: I’m Dr. Rachel Rubin, a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area. And I am so thrilled because my co-fellow, the brilliant and famous Dr. Ashley Winter, a board-certified urologist and a certified menopause practitioner, who sees patients in our practice from Los Angeles, is joining us today to talk about sex as a vital sign.

Ashley Winter, MD: To have the best sexual function, you need many different systems to work. You need your hormones to be in the right place. You need your blood vessels to dilate when you want them to. You need your nerves to connect to your genitalia to make them responsive. The way people say, “The eyes are the window into the soul” — well, the genitals are the window into the cardiovascular system, the peripheral nervous system, and the hormonal system. It’s so dynamic. Patients can understand how this reflects their health. We just need healthcare providers to hammer home how those things connect.

Rubin: If you’re a primary care doctor seeing a patient and you want to educate them on diabetes or high blood pressure, how can you “ ‘sell it with ‘sex”? How can you use sex to educate them about these important medical conditions?

Winter: I hate using it as a fear tactic, but sometimes you have to. Time and again, I’ve seen men with severe profound erectile dysfunction at a young age, with chronically uncontrolled diabetes.

Diabetes can impair the peripheral nerves, resulting in peripheral neuropathy. The same way that it can affect the fingers and toes, diabetes can affect the penis, even before those other areas. Diabetes can also lead to other conditions such as low testosterone, which also affects the function of the penis.

I’m being brutally honest when I tell patients that diabetes control is critical to having a wonderful sexspan — the duration of your life where you’re able to be sexually active and have great sex and do it in the way that you want.

Chronic conditions such as high cholesterol or hypertension can affect your ability to become erect or aroused whether you have a penis or a vulva, and even your ability to have an orgasm.

Rubin: None of my doctors has ever asked me about these issues. But we have to bring them up with patients because they›re not going to bring them up to us. I always say in the review of systems, we shouldn›t just ask, “Do you have any sexual problems?” (which nobody ever does) and move past the question about men, women or both. We should be asking, “Do you have any issues with libido? Do you want to talk about it? Any issues with erection, arousal, orgasm, or sexual pain?”

When you can talk about those things, you can treat the patient from a whole physiologic perspective. For example, how does their sciatica affect their sexual pain? How does their antidepressant cause a delayed orgasm? How does their low testosterone level affect their energy level, their libido, and their desire? 

We see so much shame and guilt in sexual health, to the extent that patients feel broken. We can help them understand the anatomy and physiology and explain that they aren’t broken. Instead, it’s “You need this medicine for your crippling anxiety, and that’s why your orgasm is delayed, and so can we augment it or add or subtract something to help you with it.”

Winter: In a primary care setting, where we are considering the patient›s overall health, we strive for medication compliance, but a huge part of medication noncompliance is sexual side effects, whether it›s antidepressants, beta-blockers, birth control, or this new world of GLP-1 agonists.

Rubin: I would add breast cancer treatments. Many patients go off their anastrozole or their tamoxifen because of the sexual side effects. 

Winter: This is where we get to the crux of this discussion about sex being a vital sign — something you need to check routinely. We need to become comfortable with it, because then we are unlocking the ability to treat every patient like a whole person, give them better outcomes, improve their compliance, and have a really powerful tool for education.

Rubin: We have a growing toolbox for all genders when it comes to sexual health. We have FDA- approved medications for low libido in women. We use testosterone in men in an evidence-based way to safely improve libido. We use medications to help with the genitourinary syndrome of menopause. Orgasm is a challenging one, but we have devices that can help with those reflexes. And working with people who specialize in sexual pain can be extremely helpful for patients.

Dr. Winter, having practiced in different settings, what would you tell the primary care doctors who don’t want to talk about libido or who minimize sexual complaints because they don’t know how to navigate them?

Winter: I do not envy the challenge of being a primary care provider in the healthcare world we are living in. I think it is the hardest job. The ultimate takeaway is to just normalize the conversation and be able to validate what is happening. Have a few basic tools, and then have referrals. It›s not that you have to have all the time in the world or you have to treat every condition, but you have to start the conversation, be comfortable with it, and then get patients hooked up with the right resources.

Rubin: Every doctor of every kind can connect with patients and try to understand what they care about. What are their goals? What do they want for their families, for their relationships, for their quality of life? And how can we work collaboratively as a team to help them with those things? 

Sex is a huge part of people’s lives. If we don’t ask about it; if we don’t look into it; and if we don’t admit that our physiology, our medications, and our surgeries can affect sexual health and functioning, how can we improve people’s lives? We can do so much as a team when we consider sex as a true vital sign.
 

Dr. Rubin, Assistant Clinical Professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, has disclosed ties with Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.

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

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

Diagnostic errors are common in hospitals and are largely preventable, according to a new observational study led by Anuj K. Dalal, MD, from the Division of General Internal Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

Dalal and his colleagues found that 1 in 14 general medicine patients (7%) suffer harm due to diagnostic errors, and up to 85% of these cases could be prevented.
 

Few Studies on Diagnostic Errors

The study found that adverse event surveillance in hospital underestimated the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors.

“It is difficult to quantify and characterize diagnostic errors, which have been studied less than medication errors,” Micaela La Regina, MD, an internist and head of the Clinical Governance and Risk Management Unit at ASL 5 in La Spezia, Italy, told Univadis Italy. “Generally, it is estimated that around 50% of diagnostic errors are preventable, but the authors of this study went beyond simply observing the hospital admission period and followed their sample for 90 days after discharge. Their findings will need to be verified in other studies, but they seem convincing.”

The researchers in Boston selected a random sample of 675 hospital patients from a total of 9147 eligible cases who received general medical care between July 2019 and September 2021, excluding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-December 2020). They retrospectively reviewed the patients’ electronic health records using a structured method to evaluate the diagnostic process for potential errors and then estimated the impact and severity of any harm.

Cases sampled were those featuring transfer to intensive care more than 24 hours after admission (100% of 130 cases), death within 90 days of hospital admission or after discharge (38.5% of 141 cases), complex clinical problems without transfer to intensive care or death within 90 days of admission (7% of 298 cases), and 2.4% of 106 cases without high-risk criteria.

Each case was reviewed by two experts trained in the use of diagnostic error evaluation and research taxonomy, modified for acute care. Harm was classified as mild, moderate, severe, or fatal. The review assessed whether diagnostic error contributed to the harm and whether it was preventable. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainties regarding the diagnostic error or its impact were further examined by an expert panel.
 

Most Frequent Situations

Among all the cases examined, diagnostic errors were identified in 160 instances in 154 patients. The most frequent situations with diagnostic errors involved transfer to intensive care (54 cases), death within 90 days (34 cases), and complex clinical problems (52 cases). Diagnostic errors causing harm were found in 84 cases (82 patients), of which 37 (28.5%) occurred in those transferred to intensive care; 18 (13%) among patients who died within 90 days; 23 (8%) among patients with complex clinical issues; and 6 (6%) in low-risk cases.

The severity of harm was categorized as minor in 5 cases (6%), moderate in 36 (43%), major in 25 (30%), and fatal in 18 cases (21.5%). Overall, the researchers estimated that the proportion of harmful, preventable diagnostic errors with serious harm in general medicine patients was slightly more than 7%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.
 

Most Frequent Diagnoses

The most common diagnoses associated with diagnostic errors in the study included heart failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory failure, altered mental state, abdominal pain, and hypoxemia. Dalal and colleagues emphasize the need for more attention to diagnostic error analysis, including the adoption of artificial intelligence–based tools for medical record screening.

“The technological approach, with alert-based systems, can certainly be helpful, but more attention must also be paid to continuous training and the well-being of healthcare workers. It is also crucial to encourage greater listening to caregivers and patients,” said La Regina. She noted that in the past, a focus on error prevention has often led to an increased workload and administrative burden on healthcare workers. However, the well-being of healthcare workers is key to ensuring patient safety.

“Countermeasures to reduce diagnostic errors require a multimodal approach, targeting professionals, the healthcare system, and organizational aspects, because even waiting lists are a critical factor,” she said. As a clinical risk expert, she recently proposed an adaptation of the value-based medicine formula in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care to include healthcare professionals’ care experience as one of the elements that contribute to determining high-value healthcare interventions. “Experiments are already underway to reimburse healthcare costs based on this formula, which also allows the assessment of the value of skills and expertise acquired by healthcare workers,” concluded La Regina.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation did not significantly reduce cardiac biomarkers in older adults with low serum vitamin D levels. The STURDY trial found no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) between low- and high-dose groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 688 participants aged 70 years or older with low serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels (10-29 ng/mL) were included in the STURDY trial.
• Participants were randomized to receive one of four doses of vitamin D3 supplementation: 200, 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU/d, with 200 IU/d as the reference dose.
• Cardiac biomarkers, including hs-cTnI and NT-proBNP, were measured at baseline, 3 months, 12 months, and 24 months.
• The trial was conducted at two community-based research institutions in the United States between July 2015 and March 2019.
• The effects of vitamin D3 dose on biomarkers were assessed via mixed-effects tobit models, with participants followed up to 24 months or until study termination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation did not significantly affect hs-cTnI levels compared with the low-dose group (1.6% difference; 95% CI, −5.3 to 8.9).
• No significant differences were observed in NT-proBNP levels between the high-dose and low-dose groups (−1.8% difference; 95% CI, −9.3 to 6.3).
• Both hs-cTnI and NT-proBNP levels increased in both low- and high-dose groups over time, with hs-cTnI increasing by 5.2% and 7.0%, respectively, and NT-proBNP increasing by 11.3% and 9.3%, respectively.
• The findings suggest that higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation do not reduce markers of subclinical cardiovascular disease in older adults with low serum vitamin D levels.

IN PRACTICE:

“We can speculate that the systemic effects of vitamin D deficiency are more profound among the very old, and there may be an inverse relationship between supplementation and inflammation. It is also possible that serum vitamin D level is a risk marker but not a risk factor for CVD risk and related underlying mechanisms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katharine W. Rainer, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s community-based population may limit the generalizability of the findings to populations at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Additionally, the baseline cardiac biomarkers were lower than those in some high-risk populations, which may affect the precision of the assay performance. The study may not have had adequate power for cross-sectional and subgroup analyses. Both groups received some vitamin D3 supplementation, making it difficult to determine the impact of lower-dose supplementation vs no supplementation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the Office of Dietary Supplements, the Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. Rainer disclosed receiving grants from these organizations.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation did not significantly reduce cardiac biomarkers in older adults with low serum vitamin D levels. The STURDY trial found no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) between low- and high-dose groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 688 participants aged 70 years or older with low serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels (10-29 ng/mL) were included in the STURDY trial.
• Participants were randomized to receive one of four doses of vitamin D3 supplementation: 200, 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU/d, with 200 IU/d as the reference dose.
• Cardiac biomarkers, including hs-cTnI and NT-proBNP, were measured at baseline, 3 months, 12 months, and 24 months.
• The trial was conducted at two community-based research institutions in the United States between July 2015 and March 2019.
• The effects of vitamin D3 dose on biomarkers were assessed via mixed-effects tobit models, with participants followed up to 24 months or until study termination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation did not significantly affect hs-cTnI levels compared with the low-dose group (1.6% difference; 95% CI, −5.3 to 8.9).
• No significant differences were observed in NT-proBNP levels between the high-dose and low-dose groups (−1.8% difference; 95% CI, −9.3 to 6.3).
• Both hs-cTnI and NT-proBNP levels increased in both low- and high-dose groups over time, with hs-cTnI increasing by 5.2% and 7.0%, respectively, and NT-proBNP increasing by 11.3% and 9.3%, respectively.
• The findings suggest that higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation do not reduce markers of subclinical cardiovascular disease in older adults with low serum vitamin D levels.

IN PRACTICE:

“We can speculate that the systemic effects of vitamin D deficiency are more profound among the very old, and there may be an inverse relationship between supplementation and inflammation. It is also possible that serum vitamin D level is a risk marker but not a risk factor for CVD risk and related underlying mechanisms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katharine W. Rainer, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s community-based population may limit the generalizability of the findings to populations at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Additionally, the baseline cardiac biomarkers were lower than those in some high-risk populations, which may affect the precision of the assay performance. The study may not have had adequate power for cross-sectional and subgroup analyses. Both groups received some vitamin D3 supplementation, making it difficult to determine the impact of lower-dose supplementation vs no supplementation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the Office of Dietary Supplements, the Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. Rainer disclosed receiving grants from these organizations.

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

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation did not significantly reduce cardiac biomarkers in older adults with low serum vitamin D levels. The STURDY trial found no significant differences in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) between low- and high-dose groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A total of 688 participants aged 70 years or older with low serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels (10-29 ng/mL) were included in the STURDY trial.
• Participants were randomized to receive one of four doses of vitamin D3 supplementation: 200, 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU/d, with 200 IU/d as the reference dose.
• Cardiac biomarkers, including hs-cTnI and NT-proBNP, were measured at baseline, 3 months, 12 months, and 24 months.
• The trial was conducted at two community-based research institutions in the United States between July 2015 and March 2019.
• The effects of vitamin D3 dose on biomarkers were assessed via mixed-effects tobit models, with participants followed up to 24 months or until study termination.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation did not significantly affect hs-cTnI levels compared with the low-dose group (1.6% difference; 95% CI, −5.3 to 8.9).
• No significant differences were observed in NT-proBNP levels between the high-dose and low-dose groups (−1.8% difference; 95% CI, −9.3 to 6.3).
• Both hs-cTnI and NT-proBNP levels increased in both low- and high-dose groups over time, with hs-cTnI increasing by 5.2% and 7.0%, respectively, and NT-proBNP increasing by 11.3% and 9.3%, respectively.
• The findings suggest that higher doses of vitamin D3 supplementation do not reduce markers of subclinical cardiovascular disease in older adults with low serum vitamin D levels.

IN PRACTICE:

“We can speculate that the systemic effects of vitamin D deficiency are more profound among the very old, and there may be an inverse relationship between supplementation and inflammation. It is also possible that serum vitamin D level is a risk marker but not a risk factor for CVD risk and related underlying mechanisms,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Katharine W. Rainer, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s community-based population may limit the generalizability of the findings to populations at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Additionally, the baseline cardiac biomarkers were lower than those in some high-risk populations, which may affect the precision of the assay performance. The study may not have had adequate power for cross-sectional and subgroup analyses. Both groups received some vitamin D3 supplementation, making it difficult to determine the impact of lower-dose supplementation vs no supplementation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the Office of Dietary Supplements, the Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Obesity Research Center, and the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research. Rainer disclosed receiving grants from these organizations.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

What do we do if we don’t like patients? We take the Hippocratic Oath as young students in Glasgow. We do that just before our graduation ceremony; we hold our hands up and repeat the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm,” and so on.

What happens if we intensely dislike a patient? Is it possible to offer them the very best care? I was thinking back over a long career. I’ve been a cancer doctor for 40 years and I quite like saying that.

I can only think genuinely over a couple of times in which I’ve acted reflexively when a patient has done something awful. The couple of times it happened, it was just terrible racist comments to junior doctors who were with me. Extraordinarily dreadful things such as, “I don’t want to be touched by ...” or something of that sort.

Without really thinking about it, you react as a normal citizen and say, “That’s absolutely awful. Apologize immediately or leave the consultation room, and never ever come back again.” 

I remember that it happened once in Glasgow and once when I was a young professor in Birmingham, and it’s just an automatic gut reaction. The patient got a fright, and I immediately apologized and groveled around. In that relationship, we hold all the power, don’t we? Rather than being gentle about it, I was genuinely angry because of these ridiculous comments. 

Otherwise, I think most of the doctor-patient relationships are predicated on nonromantic love. I think patients want us to love them as one would a son, mother, father, or daughter, because if we do, then we will do better for them and we’ll pull out all the stops. “Placebo” means “I will please.” I think in the vast majority of cases, at least in our National Health Service (NHS), patients come with trust and a sense of wanting to build that relationship. That may be changing, but not for me. 

What about putting the boot on the other foot? What if the patients don’t like us rather than vice versa? As part of our accreditation appraisal process, from time to time we have to take patient surveys as to whether the patients felt that, after they had been seen in a consultation, they were treated with dignity, the quality of information given was appropriate, and they were treated with kindness. 

It’s an excellent exercise. Without bragging about it, patients objectively, according to these measures, appreciate the service that I give. It’s like getting five-star reviews on Trustpilot, or whatever these things are, that allow you to review car salesmen and so on. I have always had five-star reviews across the board. 

That, again, I thought was just a feature of that relationship, of patients wanting to please. These are patients who had been treated, who were in the outpatient department, who were in the midst of battle. Still, the scores are very high. I speak to my colleagues and that’s not uniformly the case. Patients actually do use these feedback forms, I think in a positive rather than negative way, reflecting back on the way that they were treated.

It has caused some of my colleagues to think quite hard about their personal style and approach to patients. That sense of feedback is important. 

What about losing trust? If that’s at the heart of everything that we do, then what would be an objective measure of losing trust? Again, in our healthcare system, it has been exceedingly unusual for a patient to request a second opinion. Now, that’s changing. The government is trying to change it. Leaders of the NHS are trying to change it so that patients feel assured that they can seek second opinions.

Again, in all the years I’ve been a cancer doctor, it has been incredibly infrequent that somebody has sought a second opinion after I’ve said something. That may be a measure of trust. Again, I’ve lived through an NHS in which seeking second opinions was something of a rarity. 

I’d be really interested to see what you think. In your own sphere of healthcare practice, is it possible for us to look after patients that we don’t like, or should we be honest and say, “I don’t like you. Our relationship has broken down. I want you to be seen by a colleague,” or “I want you to be nursed by somebody else”?

Has that happened? Is that something that you think is common or may become more common? What about when trust breaks down the other way? Can you think of instances in which the relationship, for whatever reason, just didn’t work and the patient had to move on because of that loss of trust and what underpinned it? I’d be really interested to know. 

I seek to be informed rather than the other way around. Can we truly look after patients that we don’t like or can we rise above it as Hippocrates might have done? 

Thanks for listening, as always. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr, Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom, disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Stroke Association (ASA) has issued a new updated guideline for primary stroke prevention.

The first update in a decade, the 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke, replaces the 2014 version and is intended to be a resource for clinicians to help them implement a variety of prevention strategies in patients with no previous history of stroke. It aligns with the American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8.

“This guideline is an important and timely update from 2014 for multiple reasons. First, there have been groundbreaking clinical trials that have been published with new medications to not only treat the target disease [including] diabetes/obesity and high cholesterol], but also lower the risk of stroke and heart disease,” said chair of the guideline writing group, Cheryl D. Bushnell, MD, MHS, FAHA, and vice chair of the research, Department of Neurology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

It was published online on October 21 in Stroke.
 

Up to 80% of Strokes Preventable

Estimates show that every year in the United States, more than 500,000 individuals have a first stroke. However, the guideline authors noted that up to 80% of strokes may be preventable. As a result, they called for better primary stroke prevention that includes improved screening and lifestyle changes.

This includes adoption of the Mediterranean diet, which has been shown to significantly reduce stroke risk, especially when supplemented with consumption of nuts and olive oil.

The guideline recommendations also emphasize the need for physical activity, which is “essential” for cardiovascular health and stroke reduction. The authors underscored this point and provided a new recommendation to screen for sedentary behavior and advise patients to avoid inactivity and engage in regular moderate to vigorous physical activity.

Another new recommendation is based on “robust” data that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s) significantly improve the management of type 2 diabetes, weight loss, and lower the risk for cardiovascular disease. As a result, guideline authors called for the use of GLP-1s in patients with diabetes and high cardiovascular risk or established cardiovascular disease.

“The glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists have been shown to not only drastically reduce blood sugars in patients with diabetes, but they also lead to significant weight loss in these patients, which has many downstream benefits. Together, this reduces the risk of stroke and other complications of diabetes,” said Bushnell. 

She also noted that another drug class introduced since the 2014 guidelines were published, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, have proven to be highly effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. These medications have also been shown to reduce the risk for stroke.
 

At Least Two Meds Needed to Reduce BP

Effective blood pressure (BP) management is crucial for stroke prevention. Randomized controlled trials show that a single antihypertensive medication helps only about 30% of participants reach their BP target.

Most patients only achieve the desired BP target with two to three medications. In line with these data, the committee recommends using at least two antihypertensives for primary stroke prevention in most patients who require BP-lowering medications for hypertension.

In patients with antiphospholipid syndrome or systemic lupus erythematosus and no history of stroke or unprovoked venous thromboembolism, the authors recommended antiplatelet therapy to prevent stroke. They added that patients with antiphospholipid syndrome who have had a prior unprovoked venous thrombosis will likely benefit from vitamin K antagonist therapy (target international normalized ratio, 2-3) over direct oral anticoagulants.
 

Emphasis on Women’s Health

Preventing pregnancy-related stroke is achieved primarily by managing hypertension, the guideline authors noted. They recommended treating verified systolic BP over 160 mm Hg or diastolic BP over 110 mm Hg during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks postpartum to lower the risk for fatal maternal intracerebral hemorrhage.

They noted that adverse pregnancy outcomes are also common and linked to chronic hypertension, which increases stroke risk later in life. Therefore, they recommended screening for these outcomes to assess and manage vascular risk factors. The guideline includes a screening tool to help with this in clinical practice.

Endometriosis, premature ovarian failure (before age 40 years), and early-onset menopause (before age 45 years) are all associated with increased stroke risk. As a result, the guideline authors said screening for all three of these conditions is a “reasonable step in the evaluation and management of vascular risk factors in these individuals to reduce stroke risk.”

Finally, the guideline authors addressed primary stroke prevention in transgender individuals, noting that transgender women undergoing estrogen therapy for gender affirmation are at increased risk. They emphasized that evaluating and modifying risk factors could be beneficial for reducing stroke risk in this patient population.
 

Challenges Lie Ahead

Now that the guideline has been published, the challenge lies in determining how best to implement “its screening recommendations in primary care and other practices when these clinicians are already pushed to see as many patients as possible,” Bushnell said.

Development of screening tools that can be easily incorporated into the clinic visit or the electronic health record, as well as additional personnel to provide counseling, are probably needed to disseminate them, she added. 

Bushnell also emphasized that the guideline includes a strong focus on social determinants of health and related social needs. 

“We worked hard to use inclusive language and to consider populations historically excluded from research. In acknowledging that social determinants of health including access to healthcare, access to education, economic stability, neighborhood and geographic location, and social and community context have a tremendous influence on stroke risk, we describe how these factors are closely tied to the prevalence and management of many medical risks like obesity, hypertension, and diabetes.

“Our recommendations offer practical steps for screening and addressing essential health-related social needs, including access to nutritious food, stable housing, and reliable transportation, within clinical practice. By considering these factors more comprehensively, we believe we can make meaningful strides toward reducing the disparities in stroke risk,” said Bushnell. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Stroke Association (ASA) has issued a new updated guideline for primary stroke prevention.

The first update in a decade, the 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke, replaces the 2014 version and is intended to be a resource for clinicians to help them implement a variety of prevention strategies in patients with no previous history of stroke. It aligns with the American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8.

“This guideline is an important and timely update from 2014 for multiple reasons. First, there have been groundbreaking clinical trials that have been published with new medications to not only treat the target disease [including] diabetes/obesity and high cholesterol], but also lower the risk of stroke and heart disease,” said chair of the guideline writing group, Cheryl D. Bushnell, MD, MHS, FAHA, and vice chair of the research, Department of Neurology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

It was published online on October 21 in Stroke.
 

Up to 80% of Strokes Preventable

Estimates show that every year in the United States, more than 500,000 individuals have a first stroke. However, the guideline authors noted that up to 80% of strokes may be preventable. As a result, they called for better primary stroke prevention that includes improved screening and lifestyle changes.

This includes adoption of the Mediterranean diet, which has been shown to significantly reduce stroke risk, especially when supplemented with consumption of nuts and olive oil.

The guideline recommendations also emphasize the need for physical activity, which is “essential” for cardiovascular health and stroke reduction. The authors underscored this point and provided a new recommendation to screen for sedentary behavior and advise patients to avoid inactivity and engage in regular moderate to vigorous physical activity.

Another new recommendation is based on “robust” data that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s) significantly improve the management of type 2 diabetes, weight loss, and lower the risk for cardiovascular disease. As a result, guideline authors called for the use of GLP-1s in patients with diabetes and high cardiovascular risk or established cardiovascular disease.

“The glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists have been shown to not only drastically reduce blood sugars in patients with diabetes, but they also lead to significant weight loss in these patients, which has many downstream benefits. Together, this reduces the risk of stroke and other complications of diabetes,” said Bushnell. 

She also noted that another drug class introduced since the 2014 guidelines were published, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, have proven to be highly effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. These medications have also been shown to reduce the risk for stroke.
 

At Least Two Meds Needed to Reduce BP

Effective blood pressure (BP) management is crucial for stroke prevention. Randomized controlled trials show that a single antihypertensive medication helps only about 30% of participants reach their BP target.

Most patients only achieve the desired BP target with two to three medications. In line with these data, the committee recommends using at least two antihypertensives for primary stroke prevention in most patients who require BP-lowering medications for hypertension.

In patients with antiphospholipid syndrome or systemic lupus erythematosus and no history of stroke or unprovoked venous thromboembolism, the authors recommended antiplatelet therapy to prevent stroke. They added that patients with antiphospholipid syndrome who have had a prior unprovoked venous thrombosis will likely benefit from vitamin K antagonist therapy (target international normalized ratio, 2-3) over direct oral anticoagulants.
 

Emphasis on Women’s Health

Preventing pregnancy-related stroke is achieved primarily by managing hypertension, the guideline authors noted. They recommended treating verified systolic BP over 160 mm Hg or diastolic BP over 110 mm Hg during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks postpartum to lower the risk for fatal maternal intracerebral hemorrhage.

They noted that adverse pregnancy outcomes are also common and linked to chronic hypertension, which increases stroke risk later in life. Therefore, they recommended screening for these outcomes to assess and manage vascular risk factors. The guideline includes a screening tool to help with this in clinical practice.

Endometriosis, premature ovarian failure (before age 40 years), and early-onset menopause (before age 45 years) are all associated with increased stroke risk. As a result, the guideline authors said screening for all three of these conditions is a “reasonable step in the evaluation and management of vascular risk factors in these individuals to reduce stroke risk.”

Finally, the guideline authors addressed primary stroke prevention in transgender individuals, noting that transgender women undergoing estrogen therapy for gender affirmation are at increased risk. They emphasized that evaluating and modifying risk factors could be beneficial for reducing stroke risk in this patient population.
 

Challenges Lie Ahead

Now that the guideline has been published, the challenge lies in determining how best to implement “its screening recommendations in primary care and other practices when these clinicians are already pushed to see as many patients as possible,” Bushnell said.

Development of screening tools that can be easily incorporated into the clinic visit or the electronic health record, as well as additional personnel to provide counseling, are probably needed to disseminate them, she added. 

Bushnell also emphasized that the guideline includes a strong focus on social determinants of health and related social needs. 

“We worked hard to use inclusive language and to consider populations historically excluded from research. In acknowledging that social determinants of health including access to healthcare, access to education, economic stability, neighborhood and geographic location, and social and community context have a tremendous influence on stroke risk, we describe how these factors are closely tied to the prevalence and management of many medical risks like obesity, hypertension, and diabetes.

“Our recommendations offer practical steps for screening and addressing essential health-related social needs, including access to nutritious food, stable housing, and reliable transportation, within clinical practice. By considering these factors more comprehensively, we believe we can make meaningful strides toward reducing the disparities in stroke risk,” said Bushnell. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Stroke Association (ASA) has issued a new updated guideline for primary stroke prevention.

The first update in a decade, the 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke, replaces the 2014 version and is intended to be a resource for clinicians to help them implement a variety of prevention strategies in patients with no previous history of stroke. It aligns with the American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8.

“This guideline is an important and timely update from 2014 for multiple reasons. First, there have been groundbreaking clinical trials that have been published with new medications to not only treat the target disease [including] diabetes/obesity and high cholesterol], but also lower the risk of stroke and heart disease,” said chair of the guideline writing group, Cheryl D. Bushnell, MD, MHS, FAHA, and vice chair of the research, Department of Neurology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

It was published online on October 21 in Stroke.
 

Up to 80% of Strokes Preventable

Estimates show that every year in the United States, more than 500,000 individuals have a first stroke. However, the guideline authors noted that up to 80% of strokes may be preventable. As a result, they called for better primary stroke prevention that includes improved screening and lifestyle changes.

This includes adoption of the Mediterranean diet, which has been shown to significantly reduce stroke risk, especially when supplemented with consumption of nuts and olive oil.

The guideline recommendations also emphasize the need for physical activity, which is “essential” for cardiovascular health and stroke reduction. The authors underscored this point and provided a new recommendation to screen for sedentary behavior and advise patients to avoid inactivity and engage in regular moderate to vigorous physical activity.

Another new recommendation is based on “robust” data that glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s) significantly improve the management of type 2 diabetes, weight loss, and lower the risk for cardiovascular disease. As a result, guideline authors called for the use of GLP-1s in patients with diabetes and high cardiovascular risk or established cardiovascular disease.

“The glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists have been shown to not only drastically reduce blood sugars in patients with diabetes, but they also lead to significant weight loss in these patients, which has many downstream benefits. Together, this reduces the risk of stroke and other complications of diabetes,” said Bushnell. 

She also noted that another drug class introduced since the 2014 guidelines were published, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, have proven to be highly effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. These medications have also been shown to reduce the risk for stroke.
 

At Least Two Meds Needed to Reduce BP

Effective blood pressure (BP) management is crucial for stroke prevention. Randomized controlled trials show that a single antihypertensive medication helps only about 30% of participants reach their BP target.

Most patients only achieve the desired BP target with two to three medications. In line with these data, the committee recommends using at least two antihypertensives for primary stroke prevention in most patients who require BP-lowering medications for hypertension.

In patients with antiphospholipid syndrome or systemic lupus erythematosus and no history of stroke or unprovoked venous thromboembolism, the authors recommended antiplatelet therapy to prevent stroke. They added that patients with antiphospholipid syndrome who have had a prior unprovoked venous thrombosis will likely benefit from vitamin K antagonist therapy (target international normalized ratio, 2-3) over direct oral anticoagulants.
 

Emphasis on Women’s Health

Preventing pregnancy-related stroke is achieved primarily by managing hypertension, the guideline authors noted. They recommended treating verified systolic BP over 160 mm Hg or diastolic BP over 110 mm Hg during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks postpartum to lower the risk for fatal maternal intracerebral hemorrhage.

They noted that adverse pregnancy outcomes are also common and linked to chronic hypertension, which increases stroke risk later in life. Therefore, they recommended screening for these outcomes to assess and manage vascular risk factors. The guideline includes a screening tool to help with this in clinical practice.

Endometriosis, premature ovarian failure (before age 40 years), and early-onset menopause (before age 45 years) are all associated with increased stroke risk. As a result, the guideline authors said screening for all three of these conditions is a “reasonable step in the evaluation and management of vascular risk factors in these individuals to reduce stroke risk.”

Finally, the guideline authors addressed primary stroke prevention in transgender individuals, noting that transgender women undergoing estrogen therapy for gender affirmation are at increased risk. They emphasized that evaluating and modifying risk factors could be beneficial for reducing stroke risk in this patient population.
 

Challenges Lie Ahead

Now that the guideline has been published, the challenge lies in determining how best to implement “its screening recommendations in primary care and other practices when these clinicians are already pushed to see as many patients as possible,” Bushnell said.

Development of screening tools that can be easily incorporated into the clinic visit or the electronic health record, as well as additional personnel to provide counseling, are probably needed to disseminate them, she added. 

Bushnell also emphasized that the guideline includes a strong focus on social determinants of health and related social needs. 

“We worked hard to use inclusive language and to consider populations historically excluded from research. In acknowledging that social determinants of health including access to healthcare, access to education, economic stability, neighborhood and geographic location, and social and community context have a tremendous influence on stroke risk, we describe how these factors are closely tied to the prevalence and management of many medical risks like obesity, hypertension, and diabetes.

“Our recommendations offer practical steps for screening and addressing essential health-related social needs, including access to nutritious food, stable housing, and reliable transportation, within clinical practice. By considering these factors more comprehensively, we believe we can make meaningful strides toward reducing the disparities in stroke risk,” said Bushnell. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In healthy young adults, a single 30-minute bout of outdoor aerobic exercise significantly reduces fasting and 1-hour glucose levels during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) the next day and improves insulin sensitivity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent studies have identified 1-hour post-load glucose concentration during an OGTT as a specific and early predictor of diabetes, and exercise has long been known for its metabolic benefits in people with and without diabetes.
• The researchers investigated the effect of a single bout of aerobic exercise on 1-hour post-load glucose levels during an OGTT in 32 young, healthy, normal-weight or marginally overweight individuals (mean age, 35 years; 14 women and 18 men) with a sedentary or moderately active lifestyle.
• The participants underwent an initial OGTT after at least 4 days of physical inactivity, followed by a second OGTT the day after a single 30-minute bout of aerobic exercise.
• The exercise session consisted of a light jog for 30 minutes, monitored using a metabolic holter to quantify energy expenditure and exercise intensity. The participants did not undertake any exercise outside the lab sessions.
• Blood glucose levels were measured, and insulin sensitivity and secretion were estimated using surrogate indices derived from OGTT glucose and insulin assays, including the Matsuda index, oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS) index, and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index, as well as the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) of insulin resistance and of beta-cell function (HOMA-B).

TAKEAWAY:

•  
• Postexercise insulin levels also were significantly lower 1 hour after glucose load, decreasing from 57.4 IU/mL at baseline to 43.5 IU/mL the day after exercise (P = .01).
• Insulin sensitivity improved significantly after exercise, as indicated by increases in the Matsuda index (P = .02) and OGIS index (P = .04), along with a reduction in insulin resistance (P = .04).
• The study found a trend toward increased beta-cell function the day after an exercise bout, as indicated by a nonsignificant increase in HOMA-B from 144.7 at baseline to 167.1 after exercise.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improvement in 1-hour post-load plasma glucose following a single session of aerobic physical activity suggests that exercise could have a direct effect on T2D [type 2 diabetes] risk and cardiovascular risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Moffa, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, and Gian Pio Sorice, Università Degli Studi di Bari “Aldo Moro,” Bari, Italy. It was published online in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a limited sample size, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. C-peptide levels, which could have provided additional insights into insulin secretion, were not assessed in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

In healthy young adults, a single 30-minute bout of outdoor aerobic exercise significantly reduces fasting and 1-hour glucose levels during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) the next day and improves insulin sensitivity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent studies have identified 1-hour post-load glucose concentration during an OGTT as a specific and early predictor of diabetes, and exercise has long been known for its metabolic benefits in people with and without diabetes.
• The researchers investigated the effect of a single bout of aerobic exercise on 1-hour post-load glucose levels during an OGTT in 32 young, healthy, normal-weight or marginally overweight individuals (mean age, 35 years; 14 women and 18 men) with a sedentary or moderately active lifestyle.
• The participants underwent an initial OGTT after at least 4 days of physical inactivity, followed by a second OGTT the day after a single 30-minute bout of aerobic exercise.
• The exercise session consisted of a light jog for 30 minutes, monitored using a metabolic holter to quantify energy expenditure and exercise intensity. The participants did not undertake any exercise outside the lab sessions.
• Blood glucose levels were measured, and insulin sensitivity and secretion were estimated using surrogate indices derived from OGTT glucose and insulin assays, including the Matsuda index, oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS) index, and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index, as well as the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) of insulin resistance and of beta-cell function (HOMA-B).

TAKEAWAY:

•  
• Postexercise insulin levels also were significantly lower 1 hour after glucose load, decreasing from 57.4 IU/mL at baseline to 43.5 IU/mL the day after exercise (P = .01).
• Insulin sensitivity improved significantly after exercise, as indicated by increases in the Matsuda index (P = .02) and OGIS index (P = .04), along with a reduction in insulin resistance (P = .04).
• The study found a trend toward increased beta-cell function the day after an exercise bout, as indicated by a nonsignificant increase in HOMA-B from 144.7 at baseline to 167.1 after exercise.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improvement in 1-hour post-load plasma glucose following a single session of aerobic physical activity suggests that exercise could have a direct effect on T2D [type 2 diabetes] risk and cardiovascular risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Moffa, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, and Gian Pio Sorice, Università Degli Studi di Bari “Aldo Moro,” Bari, Italy. It was published online in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a limited sample size, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. C-peptide levels, which could have provided additional insights into insulin secretion, were not assessed in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

In healthy young adults, a single 30-minute bout of outdoor aerobic exercise significantly reduces fasting and 1-hour glucose levels during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) the next day and improves insulin sensitivity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recent studies have identified 1-hour post-load glucose concentration during an OGTT as a specific and early predictor of diabetes, and exercise has long been known for its metabolic benefits in people with and without diabetes.
• The researchers investigated the effect of a single bout of aerobic exercise on 1-hour post-load glucose levels during an OGTT in 32 young, healthy, normal-weight or marginally overweight individuals (mean age, 35 years; 14 women and 18 men) with a sedentary or moderately active lifestyle.
• The participants underwent an initial OGTT after at least 4 days of physical inactivity, followed by a second OGTT the day after a single 30-minute bout of aerobic exercise.
• The exercise session consisted of a light jog for 30 minutes, monitored using a metabolic holter to quantify energy expenditure and exercise intensity. The participants did not undertake any exercise outside the lab sessions.
• Blood glucose levels were measured, and insulin sensitivity and secretion were estimated using surrogate indices derived from OGTT glucose and insulin assays, including the Matsuda index, oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS) index, and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index, as well as the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) of insulin resistance and of beta-cell function (HOMA-B).

TAKEAWAY:

•  
• Postexercise insulin levels also were significantly lower 1 hour after glucose load, decreasing from 57.4 IU/mL at baseline to 43.5 IU/mL the day after exercise (P = .01).
• Insulin sensitivity improved significantly after exercise, as indicated by increases in the Matsuda index (P = .02) and OGIS index (P = .04), along with a reduction in insulin resistance (P = .04).
• The study found a trend toward increased beta-cell function the day after an exercise bout, as indicated by a nonsignificant increase in HOMA-B from 144.7 at baseline to 167.1 after exercise.

IN PRACTICE:

“Improvement in 1-hour post-load plasma glucose following a single session of aerobic physical activity suggests that exercise could have a direct effect on T2D [type 2 diabetes] risk and cardiovascular risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Simona Moffa, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, and Gian Pio Sorice, Università Degli Studi di Bari “Aldo Moro,” Bari, Italy. It was published online in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a limited sample size, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. C-peptide levels, which could have provided additional insights into insulin secretion, were not assessed in the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Clinicians receive conflicting advice on whether to order blood tests to screen for lipids in children. A new study could add to the confusion. Researchers found that a combination of physical proxy measures such as hypertension and body mass index (BMI) predicted the risk for future cardiovascular events as well as the physical model plus lipid labs, questioning the value of those blood tests.

Some medical organizations advise screening only for high-risk children because more research is needed to define the harms and benefits of universal screening. Diet and behavioral changes are sufficient for most children, and universal screening could lead to false positives and unnecessary further testing, they said.

Groups that favor lipid tests for all children say these measurements detect familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) that would not otherwise be diagnosed, leading to treatment with drugs like statins and a greater chance of preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adulthood.

Researchers from the new study said their findings do not address screenings for FH, which affects 1 in 250 US children and puts them at a risk for atherosclerotic CVD.
 

Recommending Blood Tests in Age Groups

One of the seminal guidelines on screening lipids in children came from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), which in 2011 recommended children undergo dyslipidemia screening between the ages of 9 and 11 years and again between 17 and 21 years. Children should receive a screening starting at age 2 years if they have a family history of CVD or dyslipidemia or have diabetes, an elevated BMI, or hypertension. The American Academy of Pediatrics shortly followed suit, issuing similar recommendations.

Screening for the two subsets of ages was an expansion from the original 1992 guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program, which recommended screening only for children with either a family history of early CVD or elevated total cholesterol levels.

A 2011 panel for the NHLBI said the older approach identified significantly fewer children with abnormal levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) than the addition of two age groups for screening, adding that many children do not have a complete family history. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association later supported NHLBI’s stance in their joint guidelines on the management of cholesterol.

Mark Corkins, MD, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Nutrition, told Medscape Medical News that if children are screened only because they have obesity or a family history of FH, some with elevated lipid levels will be missed. For instance, studies indicate caregiver recall of FH often is inaccurate, and the genetic disorder that causes the condition is not related to obesity.

“The screening is to find familial hypercholesterolemia, to try to find the ones that need therapy,” that would not be caught by the risk-based screening earlier on in childhood, Corkins said.
 

Only Screen Children With Risk Factors

But other groups do not agree. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening for lipid disorders in asymptomatic children and teens.

The group also said it found inadequate evidence that lipid-lowering interventions in the general pediatric population lead to reductions in cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality once they reached adulthood. USPSTF also raised questions about the safety of lipid-lowering drugs in children.

“The current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for lipid disorders in children and adolescents 20 years or younger,” the panel wrote.

The American Academy of Family Physicians supports USPSTF’s recommendations.
 

Low Rate of Screening

While the uncertainty over screening in children continues, the practice has been adopted by a minority of clinicians.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in July found 9% of 700,000 9- to 11-year-olds had a documented result from a lipid screening. Among more than 1.3 million 17- to 21-year-olds, 13% had received a screening.

As BMI went up, so did screening rates. A little over 9% children and teens with a healthy weight were screened compared with 14.7% of those with moderate obesity and 21.9% of those with severe obesity.

Among those screened, 32.3% of 9- to 11-year-olds and 30.2% of 17- to 21-year-olds had abnormal lipid levels, defined as having one elevated measure out of five, including total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher or LDL-C levels of 130 mg/dL or higher.

Justin Zachariah, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics-cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, spoke about physicians screening children based only on factors like obesity during a presentation at the recent annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He cited research showing roughly one in four children with abnormal lipids had a normal weight.

If a clinician is reserving a lipid screening for a child who is overweight or has obesity, “you’re missing nearly half the problem,” Zachariah said during his presentation.

One reason for the low rate of universal screening may be inattention to FH by clinicians, according to Samuel S. Gidding, MD, a professor in the Department of Genomic Health at Geisinger College of Health Sciences in Bridgewater Corners, Vermont.

For instance, a clinician has only a set amount of time during a well-child visit and other issues may take precedence, “so it doesn’t make sense to broach preventive screening for something that could happen 30 or 40 years from now, vs this [other] very immediate problem,” he said.

Clinicians “are triggered to act on the LDL level, but don’t think about FH as a possible diagnosis,” Gidding told Medscape Medical News.

Another barrier is that in some settings, caregivers must take children and teens to another facility on a different day to fulfill an order for a lipid test.

“It’s reluctance of doctors to order it, knowing patients won’t go through with it,” Gidding said.

Gidding is a consultant for Esperion Therapeutics. Other sources in this story reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

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

Clinicians receive conflicting advice on whether to order blood tests to screen for lipids in children. A new study could add to the confusion. Researchers found that a combination of physical proxy measures such as hypertension and body mass index (BMI) predicted the risk for future cardiovascular events as well as the physical model plus lipid labs, questioning the value of those blood tests.

Some medical organizations advise screening only for high-risk children because more research is needed to define the harms and benefits of universal screening. Diet and behavioral changes are sufficient for most children, and universal screening could lead to false positives and unnecessary further testing, they said.

Groups that favor lipid tests for all children say these measurements detect familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) that would not otherwise be diagnosed, leading to treatment with drugs like statins and a greater chance of preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adulthood.

Researchers from the new study said their findings do not address screenings for FH, which affects 1 in 250 US children and puts them at a risk for atherosclerotic CVD.
 

Recommending Blood Tests in Age Groups

One of the seminal guidelines on screening lipids in children came from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), which in 2011 recommended children undergo dyslipidemia screening between the ages of 9 and 11 years and again between 17 and 21 years. Children should receive a screening starting at age 2 years if they have a family history of CVD or dyslipidemia or have diabetes, an elevated BMI, or hypertension. The American Academy of Pediatrics shortly followed suit, issuing similar recommendations.

Screening for the two subsets of ages was an expansion from the original 1992 guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program, which recommended screening only for children with either a family history of early CVD or elevated total cholesterol levels.

A 2011 panel for the NHLBI said the older approach identified significantly fewer children with abnormal levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) than the addition of two age groups for screening, adding that many children do not have a complete family history. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association later supported NHLBI’s stance in their joint guidelines on the management of cholesterol.

Mark Corkins, MD, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Nutrition, told Medscape Medical News that if children are screened only because they have obesity or a family history of FH, some with elevated lipid levels will be missed. For instance, studies indicate caregiver recall of FH often is inaccurate, and the genetic disorder that causes the condition is not related to obesity.

“The screening is to find familial hypercholesterolemia, to try to find the ones that need therapy,” that would not be caught by the risk-based screening earlier on in childhood, Corkins said.
 

Only Screen Children With Risk Factors

But other groups do not agree. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening for lipid disorders in asymptomatic children and teens.

The group also said it found inadequate evidence that lipid-lowering interventions in the general pediatric population lead to reductions in cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality once they reached adulthood. USPSTF also raised questions about the safety of lipid-lowering drugs in children.

“The current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for lipid disorders in children and adolescents 20 years or younger,” the panel wrote.

The American Academy of Family Physicians supports USPSTF’s recommendations.
 

Low Rate of Screening

While the uncertainty over screening in children continues, the practice has been adopted by a minority of clinicians.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in July found 9% of 700,000 9- to 11-year-olds had a documented result from a lipid screening. Among more than 1.3 million 17- to 21-year-olds, 13% had received a screening.

As BMI went up, so did screening rates. A little over 9% children and teens with a healthy weight were screened compared with 14.7% of those with moderate obesity and 21.9% of those with severe obesity.

Among those screened, 32.3% of 9- to 11-year-olds and 30.2% of 17- to 21-year-olds had abnormal lipid levels, defined as having one elevated measure out of five, including total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher or LDL-C levels of 130 mg/dL or higher.

Justin Zachariah, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics-cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, spoke about physicians screening children based only on factors like obesity during a presentation at the recent annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He cited research showing roughly one in four children with abnormal lipids had a normal weight.

If a clinician is reserving a lipid screening for a child who is overweight or has obesity, “you’re missing nearly half the problem,” Zachariah said during his presentation.

One reason for the low rate of universal screening may be inattention to FH by clinicians, according to Samuel S. Gidding, MD, a professor in the Department of Genomic Health at Geisinger College of Health Sciences in Bridgewater Corners, Vermont.

For instance, a clinician has only a set amount of time during a well-child visit and other issues may take precedence, “so it doesn’t make sense to broach preventive screening for something that could happen 30 or 40 years from now, vs this [other] very immediate problem,” he said.

Clinicians “are triggered to act on the LDL level, but don’t think about FH as a possible diagnosis,” Gidding told Medscape Medical News.

Another barrier is that in some settings, caregivers must take children and teens to another facility on a different day to fulfill an order for a lipid test.

“It’s reluctance of doctors to order it, knowing patients won’t go through with it,” Gidding said.

Gidding is a consultant for Esperion Therapeutics. Other sources in this story reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

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

Clinicians receive conflicting advice on whether to order blood tests to screen for lipids in children. A new study could add to the confusion. Researchers found that a combination of physical proxy measures such as hypertension and body mass index (BMI) predicted the risk for future cardiovascular events as well as the physical model plus lipid labs, questioning the value of those blood tests.

Some medical organizations advise screening only for high-risk children because more research is needed to define the harms and benefits of universal screening. Diet and behavioral changes are sufficient for most children, and universal screening could lead to false positives and unnecessary further testing, they said.

Groups that favor lipid tests for all children say these measurements detect familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) that would not otherwise be diagnosed, leading to treatment with drugs like statins and a greater chance of preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adulthood.

Researchers from the new study said their findings do not address screenings for FH, which affects 1 in 250 US children and puts them at a risk for atherosclerotic CVD.
 

Recommending Blood Tests in Age Groups

One of the seminal guidelines on screening lipids in children came from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), which in 2011 recommended children undergo dyslipidemia screening between the ages of 9 and 11 years and again between 17 and 21 years. Children should receive a screening starting at age 2 years if they have a family history of CVD or dyslipidemia or have diabetes, an elevated BMI, or hypertension. The American Academy of Pediatrics shortly followed suit, issuing similar recommendations.

Screening for the two subsets of ages was an expansion from the original 1992 guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program, which recommended screening only for children with either a family history of early CVD or elevated total cholesterol levels.

A 2011 panel for the NHLBI said the older approach identified significantly fewer children with abnormal levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) than the addition of two age groups for screening, adding that many children do not have a complete family history. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association later supported NHLBI’s stance in their joint guidelines on the management of cholesterol.

Mark Corkins, MD, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Nutrition, told Medscape Medical News that if children are screened only because they have obesity or a family history of FH, some with elevated lipid levels will be missed. For instance, studies indicate caregiver recall of FH often is inaccurate, and the genetic disorder that causes the condition is not related to obesity.

“The screening is to find familial hypercholesterolemia, to try to find the ones that need therapy,” that would not be caught by the risk-based screening earlier on in childhood, Corkins said.
 

Only Screen Children With Risk Factors

But other groups do not agree. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening for lipid disorders in asymptomatic children and teens.

The group also said it found inadequate evidence that lipid-lowering interventions in the general pediatric population lead to reductions in cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality once they reached adulthood. USPSTF also raised questions about the safety of lipid-lowering drugs in children.

“The current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for lipid disorders in children and adolescents 20 years or younger,” the panel wrote.

The American Academy of Family Physicians supports USPSTF’s recommendations.
 

Low Rate of Screening

While the uncertainty over screening in children continues, the practice has been adopted by a minority of clinicians.

A study published in JAMA Network Open in July found 9% of 700,000 9- to 11-year-olds had a documented result from a lipid screening. Among more than 1.3 million 17- to 21-year-olds, 13% had received a screening.

As BMI went up, so did screening rates. A little over 9% children and teens with a healthy weight were screened compared with 14.7% of those with moderate obesity and 21.9% of those with severe obesity.

Among those screened, 32.3% of 9- to 11-year-olds and 30.2% of 17- to 21-year-olds had abnormal lipid levels, defined as having one elevated measure out of five, including total cholesterol of 200 mg/dL or higher or LDL-C levels of 130 mg/dL or higher.

Justin Zachariah, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics-cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, spoke about physicians screening children based only on factors like obesity during a presentation at the recent annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He cited research showing roughly one in four children with abnormal lipids had a normal weight.

If a clinician is reserving a lipid screening for a child who is overweight or has obesity, “you’re missing nearly half the problem,” Zachariah said during his presentation.

One reason for the low rate of universal screening may be inattention to FH by clinicians, according to Samuel S. Gidding, MD, a professor in the Department of Genomic Health at Geisinger College of Health Sciences in Bridgewater Corners, Vermont.

For instance, a clinician has only a set amount of time during a well-child visit and other issues may take precedence, “so it doesn’t make sense to broach preventive screening for something that could happen 30 or 40 years from now, vs this [other] very immediate problem,” he said.

Clinicians “are triggered to act on the LDL level, but don’t think about FH as a possible diagnosis,” Gidding told Medscape Medical News.

Another barrier is that in some settings, caregivers must take children and teens to another facility on a different day to fulfill an order for a lipid test.

“It’s reluctance of doctors to order it, knowing patients won’t go through with it,” Gidding said.

Gidding is a consultant for Esperion Therapeutics. Other sources in this story reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
 

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued a new scientific statement on the link between heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease and the increased risk for cognitive impairment and dementia.

The statement includes an extensive research review and offers compelling evidence of the inextricable link between heart health and brain health, which investigators said underscores the benefit of early intervention.

The cumulative evidence “confirms that the trajectories of cardiac health and brain health are inextricably intertwined through modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote.

Investigators say the findings reinforce the message that addressing cardiovascular health early in life may deter the onset or progression of cognitive impairment later on.

And the earlier this is done, the better, said lead author Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology and the vascular neurology section head, Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois, Chicago.

The statement was published online in Stroke.
 

Bridging the Research Gap

It’s well known that there’s a bidirectional relationship between heart and brain function. For example, heart failure can lead to decreased blood flow that can damage the brain, and stroke in some areas of the brain can affect the heart.

However, that’s only part of the puzzle and doesn’t address all the gaps in the understanding of how cardiovascular disease contributes to cognition, said Testai.

“What we’re trying to do here is to go one step further and describe other connections between the heart and the brain,” he said.

Investigators carried out an extensive PubMed search for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease. Researchers detailed the frequency of each condition, mechanisms by which they might cause cognitive impairment, and prospects for prevention and treatment to maintain brain health.

A recurring theme in the paper is the role of inflammation. Evidence shows there are “remarkable similarities in the inflammatory response that takes place,” with both cardiac disease and cognitive decline, said Testai.

Another potential shared mechanism relates to biomarkers, particularly amyloid, which is strongly linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

“But some studies show amyloid can also be present in the heart, especially in patients who have decreased ejection fraction,” said Testai.
 

Robust Heart-Brain Connection

The statement’s authors collected a substantial amount of evidence showing vascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes “can change how the brain processes and clears up amyloid,” Testai added.

The paper also provides a compilation of evidence of shared genetic predispositions when it comes to heart and brain disorders.

“We noticed that some genetic signatures that have historically been associated with heart disease seem to also correlate with structural changes in the brain. That means that at the end of the day, some patients may be born with a genetic predisposition to developing both conditions,” said Testai.

This indicates that the link between the two organs “begins as early as conception” and underscores the importance of adopting healthy lifestyle habits as early as possible, he added.

“That means you can avoid bad habits that eventually lead to hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol, that eventually will lead to cardiac disease, which eventually will lead to stroke, which eventually will lead to cognitive decline,” Testai noted.

However, cardiovascular health is more complicated than having good genes and adhering to a healthy lifestyle. It’s not clear, for example, why some people who should be predisposed to developing heart disease do not develop it, something Testai refers to as enhanced “resilience.”

For example, Hispanic or Latino patients, who have relatively poor cardiovascular risk factor profiles, seem to be less susceptible to developing cardiac disease.
 

More Research Needed

While genetics may partly explain the paradox, Testai believes other protective factors are at play, including strong social support networks.

Testai referred to the AHA’s “Life’s Essential 8” — the eight components of cardiovascular health. These include a healthy diet, participation in physical activity, nicotine avoidance, healthy sleep, healthy weight, and healthy levels of blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

More evidence is needed to show that effective management of cardiac disease positively affects cognition. Currently, cognitive measures are rarely included in studies examining various heart disease treatments, said Testai.

“There should probably be an effort to include brain health outcomes in some of the cardiac literature to make sure we can also measure whether the intervention in the heart leads to an advantage for the brain,” he said.

More research is also needed to determine whether immunomodulation has a beneficial effect on the cognitive trajectory, the statement’s authors noted.

They point out that the interpretation and generalizability of the studies described in the statement are confounded by disparate methodologies, including small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, and underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals.
 

‘An Important Step’

Reached for a comment, Natalia S. Rost, MD, Chief of the Stroke Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this paper “is an important step” in terms of pulling together pertinent information on the topic of heart-brain health.

She praised the authors for gathering evidence on risk factors related to atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and coronary heart disease, which is “the part of the puzzle that is controllable.”

This helps reinforce the message that controlling vascular risk factors helps with brain health, said Rost.

But brain health is “much more complex than just vascular health,” she said. It includes other elements such as freedom from epilepsy, migraine, traumatic brain injury, and adult learning disabilities.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued a new scientific statement on the link between heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease and the increased risk for cognitive impairment and dementia.

The statement includes an extensive research review and offers compelling evidence of the inextricable link between heart health and brain health, which investigators said underscores the benefit of early intervention.

The cumulative evidence “confirms that the trajectories of cardiac health and brain health are inextricably intertwined through modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote.

Investigators say the findings reinforce the message that addressing cardiovascular health early in life may deter the onset or progression of cognitive impairment later on.

And the earlier this is done, the better, said lead author Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology and the vascular neurology section head, Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois, Chicago.

The statement was published online in Stroke.
 

Bridging the Research Gap

It’s well known that there’s a bidirectional relationship between heart and brain function. For example, heart failure can lead to decreased blood flow that can damage the brain, and stroke in some areas of the brain can affect the heart.

However, that’s only part of the puzzle and doesn’t address all the gaps in the understanding of how cardiovascular disease contributes to cognition, said Testai.

“What we’re trying to do here is to go one step further and describe other connections between the heart and the brain,” he said.

Investigators carried out an extensive PubMed search for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease. Researchers detailed the frequency of each condition, mechanisms by which they might cause cognitive impairment, and prospects for prevention and treatment to maintain brain health.

A recurring theme in the paper is the role of inflammation. Evidence shows there are “remarkable similarities in the inflammatory response that takes place,” with both cardiac disease and cognitive decline, said Testai.

Another potential shared mechanism relates to biomarkers, particularly amyloid, which is strongly linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

“But some studies show amyloid can also be present in the heart, especially in patients who have decreased ejection fraction,” said Testai.
 

Robust Heart-Brain Connection

The statement’s authors collected a substantial amount of evidence showing vascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes “can change how the brain processes and clears up amyloid,” Testai added.

The paper also provides a compilation of evidence of shared genetic predispositions when it comes to heart and brain disorders.

“We noticed that some genetic signatures that have historically been associated with heart disease seem to also correlate with structural changes in the brain. That means that at the end of the day, some patients may be born with a genetic predisposition to developing both conditions,” said Testai.

This indicates that the link between the two organs “begins as early as conception” and underscores the importance of adopting healthy lifestyle habits as early as possible, he added.

“That means you can avoid bad habits that eventually lead to hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol, that eventually will lead to cardiac disease, which eventually will lead to stroke, which eventually will lead to cognitive decline,” Testai noted.

However, cardiovascular health is more complicated than having good genes and adhering to a healthy lifestyle. It’s not clear, for example, why some people who should be predisposed to developing heart disease do not develop it, something Testai refers to as enhanced “resilience.”

For example, Hispanic or Latino patients, who have relatively poor cardiovascular risk factor profiles, seem to be less susceptible to developing cardiac disease.
 

More Research Needed

While genetics may partly explain the paradox, Testai believes other protective factors are at play, including strong social support networks.

Testai referred to the AHA’s “Life’s Essential 8” — the eight components of cardiovascular health. These include a healthy diet, participation in physical activity, nicotine avoidance, healthy sleep, healthy weight, and healthy levels of blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

More evidence is needed to show that effective management of cardiac disease positively affects cognition. Currently, cognitive measures are rarely included in studies examining various heart disease treatments, said Testai.

“There should probably be an effort to include brain health outcomes in some of the cardiac literature to make sure we can also measure whether the intervention in the heart leads to an advantage for the brain,” he said.

More research is also needed to determine whether immunomodulation has a beneficial effect on the cognitive trajectory, the statement’s authors noted.

They point out that the interpretation and generalizability of the studies described in the statement are confounded by disparate methodologies, including small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, and underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals.
 

‘An Important Step’

Reached for a comment, Natalia S. Rost, MD, Chief of the Stroke Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this paper “is an important step” in terms of pulling together pertinent information on the topic of heart-brain health.

She praised the authors for gathering evidence on risk factors related to atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and coronary heart disease, which is “the part of the puzzle that is controllable.”

This helps reinforce the message that controlling vascular risk factors helps with brain health, said Rost.

But brain health is “much more complex than just vascular health,” she said. It includes other elements such as freedom from epilepsy, migraine, traumatic brain injury, and adult learning disabilities.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

The American Heart Association (AHA) has issued a new scientific statement on the link between heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease and the increased risk for cognitive impairment and dementia.

The statement includes an extensive research review and offers compelling evidence of the inextricable link between heart health and brain health, which investigators said underscores the benefit of early intervention.

The cumulative evidence “confirms that the trajectories of cardiac health and brain health are inextricably intertwined through modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote.

Investigators say the findings reinforce the message that addressing cardiovascular health early in life may deter the onset or progression of cognitive impairment later on.

And the earlier this is done, the better, said lead author Fernando D. Testai, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology and the vascular neurology section head, Department of Neurology and Rehabilitation, University of Illinois, Chicago.

The statement was published online in Stroke.
 

Bridging the Research Gap

It’s well known that there’s a bidirectional relationship between heart and brain function. For example, heart failure can lead to decreased blood flow that can damage the brain, and stroke in some areas of the brain can affect the heart.

However, that’s only part of the puzzle and doesn’t address all the gaps in the understanding of how cardiovascular disease contributes to cognition, said Testai.

“What we’re trying to do here is to go one step further and describe other connections between the heart and the brain,” he said.

Investigators carried out an extensive PubMed search for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease. Researchers detailed the frequency of each condition, mechanisms by which they might cause cognitive impairment, and prospects for prevention and treatment to maintain brain health.

A recurring theme in the paper is the role of inflammation. Evidence shows there are “remarkable similarities in the inflammatory response that takes place,” with both cardiac disease and cognitive decline, said Testai.

Another potential shared mechanism relates to biomarkers, particularly amyloid, which is strongly linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

“But some studies show amyloid can also be present in the heart, especially in patients who have decreased ejection fraction,” said Testai.
 

Robust Heart-Brain Connection

The statement’s authors collected a substantial amount of evidence showing vascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes “can change how the brain processes and clears up amyloid,” Testai added.

The paper also provides a compilation of evidence of shared genetic predispositions when it comes to heart and brain disorders.

“We noticed that some genetic signatures that have historically been associated with heart disease seem to also correlate with structural changes in the brain. That means that at the end of the day, some patients may be born with a genetic predisposition to developing both conditions,” said Testai.

This indicates that the link between the two organs “begins as early as conception” and underscores the importance of adopting healthy lifestyle habits as early as possible, he added.

“That means you can avoid bad habits that eventually lead to hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol, that eventually will lead to cardiac disease, which eventually will lead to stroke, which eventually will lead to cognitive decline,” Testai noted.

However, cardiovascular health is more complicated than having good genes and adhering to a healthy lifestyle. It’s not clear, for example, why some people who should be predisposed to developing heart disease do not develop it, something Testai refers to as enhanced “resilience.”

For example, Hispanic or Latino patients, who have relatively poor cardiovascular risk factor profiles, seem to be less susceptible to developing cardiac disease.
 

More Research Needed

While genetics may partly explain the paradox, Testai believes other protective factors are at play, including strong social support networks.

Testai referred to the AHA’s “Life’s Essential 8” — the eight components of cardiovascular health. These include a healthy diet, participation in physical activity, nicotine avoidance, healthy sleep, healthy weight, and healthy levels of blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure.

More evidence is needed to show that effective management of cardiac disease positively affects cognition. Currently, cognitive measures are rarely included in studies examining various heart disease treatments, said Testai.

“There should probably be an effort to include brain health outcomes in some of the cardiac literature to make sure we can also measure whether the intervention in the heart leads to an advantage for the brain,” he said.

More research is also needed to determine whether immunomodulation has a beneficial effect on the cognitive trajectory, the statement’s authors noted.

They point out that the interpretation and generalizability of the studies described in the statement are confounded by disparate methodologies, including small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs, and underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic individuals.
 

‘An Important Step’

Reached for a comment, Natalia S. Rost, MD, Chief of the Stroke Division at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said this paper “is an important step” in terms of pulling together pertinent information on the topic of heart-brain health.

She praised the authors for gathering evidence on risk factors related to atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and coronary heart disease, which is “the part of the puzzle that is controllable.”

This helps reinforce the message that controlling vascular risk factors helps with brain health, said Rost.

But brain health is “much more complex than just vascular health,” she said. It includes other elements such as freedom from epilepsy, migraine, traumatic brain injury, and adult learning disabilities.

No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

I’d like to talk with you about ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) and risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and try to separate some of the facts from the myths. I’d like to discuss a recent report in The Lancet Regional Health that looks at this topic comprehensively and in detail.

This report includes three large-scale prospective cohort studies of US female and male health professionals, more than 200,000 participants in total. It also includes a meta-analysis of 22 international cohorts with about 1.2 million participants. I’d like to acknowledge that I’m a co-author of this study.

What are UPFs, and why are they important? Why do we care, and what are the knowledge gaps? UPFs are generally packaged foods that contain ingredients to extend shelf life and improve taste and palatability. It’s important because 60%-70% of the US diet, if not more, is made up of UPFs. So, the relationship between UPFs and CVD and other health outcomes is actually very important. 

And the research to date on this subject has been quite limited. 

Often, UPFs will include additives, such as preservatives, flavor enhancers, colorants, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, and they tend to have an excess amount of calories, added sugars, added salt, sodium, and saturated fat. The packaging can be high in bisphenols, which have also been linked to some health outcomes.

In other studies, these UPFs have been linked to weight gain and dyslipidemia; some tissue glycation has been found, and some changes in the microbiome. Some studies have linked higher UPF intake with type 2 diabetes. A few have looked at certain selected UPF foods and found a higher risk for CVD, but a really comprehensive look at this question hasn’t been done. 

So, that’s what we did in this paper and in the meta-analysis with the 22 cohorts, and we saw a very clear and distinct significant increase in coronary heart disease by 23%, total CVD by 17%, and stroke by 9% when comparing the highest vs the lowest category [of UPF intake]. When we drilled down deeply into the types of UPFs in the US health professional cohorts, we saw that there were some major differences in the relationship with CVD depending on the type of UPF.

In comparing the highest quintile vs the lowest quintile [of total UPF intake], we saw that some of the UPFs were associated with significant elevations in risk for CVD. These included sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats. But some UPFs were linked with a lower risk for CVD. These included breakfast cereals, yogurt, some dairy desserts, and whole grains.

Overall, it seemed that UPFs are actually quite diverse in their association with health. It’s not one size fits all. They’re not all created equal, and some of these differences matter. Although overall we would recommend that our diets be focused on whole foods, primarily plant based, lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, and other whole foods, it seems from this report and the meta-analysis that certain types of UPFs can be incorporated into a healthy diet and don’t need to be avoided entirely. 

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and Chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts. She reported receiving donations and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience.

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

I’d like to talk with you about ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) and risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and try to separate some of the facts from the myths. I’d like to discuss a recent report in The Lancet Regional Health that looks at this topic comprehensively and in detail.

This report includes three large-scale prospective cohort studies of US female and male health professionals, more than 200,000 participants in total. It also includes a meta-analysis of 22 international cohorts with about 1.2 million participants. I’d like to acknowledge that I’m a co-author of this study.

What are UPFs, and why are they important? Why do we care, and what are the knowledge gaps? UPFs are generally packaged foods that contain ingredients to extend shelf life and improve taste and palatability. It’s important because 60%-70% of the US diet, if not more, is made up of UPFs. So, the relationship between UPFs and CVD and other health outcomes is actually very important. 

And the research to date on this subject has been quite limited. 

Often, UPFs will include additives, such as preservatives, flavor enhancers, colorants, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, and they tend to have an excess amount of calories, added sugars, added salt, sodium, and saturated fat. The packaging can be high in bisphenols, which have also been linked to some health outcomes.

In other studies, these UPFs have been linked to weight gain and dyslipidemia; some tissue glycation has been found, and some changes in the microbiome. Some studies have linked higher UPF intake with type 2 diabetes. A few have looked at certain selected UPF foods and found a higher risk for CVD, but a really comprehensive look at this question hasn’t been done. 

So, that’s what we did in this paper and in the meta-analysis with the 22 cohorts, and we saw a very clear and distinct significant increase in coronary heart disease by 23%, total CVD by 17%, and stroke by 9% when comparing the highest vs the lowest category [of UPF intake]. When we drilled down deeply into the types of UPFs in the US health professional cohorts, we saw that there were some major differences in the relationship with CVD depending on the type of UPF.

In comparing the highest quintile vs the lowest quintile [of total UPF intake], we saw that some of the UPFs were associated with significant elevations in risk for CVD. These included sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats. But some UPFs were linked with a lower risk for CVD. These included breakfast cereals, yogurt, some dairy desserts, and whole grains.

Overall, it seemed that UPFs are actually quite diverse in their association with health. It’s not one size fits all. They’re not all created equal, and some of these differences matter. Although overall we would recommend that our diets be focused on whole foods, primarily plant based, lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, and other whole foods, it seems from this report and the meta-analysis that certain types of UPFs can be incorporated into a healthy diet and don’t need to be avoided entirely. 

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and Chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts. She reported receiving donations and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience.

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

I’d like to talk with you about ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) and risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and try to separate some of the facts from the myths. I’d like to discuss a recent report in The Lancet Regional Health that looks at this topic comprehensively and in detail.

This report includes three large-scale prospective cohort studies of US female and male health professionals, more than 200,000 participants in total. It also includes a meta-analysis of 22 international cohorts with about 1.2 million participants. I’d like to acknowledge that I’m a co-author of this study.

What are UPFs, and why are they important? Why do we care, and what are the knowledge gaps? UPFs are generally packaged foods that contain ingredients to extend shelf life and improve taste and palatability. It’s important because 60%-70% of the US diet, if not more, is made up of UPFs. So, the relationship between UPFs and CVD and other health outcomes is actually very important. 

And the research to date on this subject has been quite limited. 

Often, UPFs will include additives, such as preservatives, flavor enhancers, colorants, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, and they tend to have an excess amount of calories, added sugars, added salt, sodium, and saturated fat. The packaging can be high in bisphenols, which have also been linked to some health outcomes.

In other studies, these UPFs have been linked to weight gain and dyslipidemia; some tissue glycation has been found, and some changes in the microbiome. Some studies have linked higher UPF intake with type 2 diabetes. A few have looked at certain selected UPF foods and found a higher risk for CVD, but a really comprehensive look at this question hasn’t been done. 

So, that’s what we did in this paper and in the meta-analysis with the 22 cohorts, and we saw a very clear and distinct significant increase in coronary heart disease by 23%, total CVD by 17%, and stroke by 9% when comparing the highest vs the lowest category [of UPF intake]. When we drilled down deeply into the types of UPFs in the US health professional cohorts, we saw that there were some major differences in the relationship with CVD depending on the type of UPF.

In comparing the highest quintile vs the lowest quintile [of total UPF intake], we saw that some of the UPFs were associated with significant elevations in risk for CVD. These included sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats. But some UPFs were linked with a lower risk for CVD. These included breakfast cereals, yogurt, some dairy desserts, and whole grains.

Overall, it seemed that UPFs are actually quite diverse in their association with health. It’s not one size fits all. They’re not all created equal, and some of these differences matter. Although overall we would recommend that our diets be focused on whole foods, primarily plant based, lots of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, and other whole foods, it seems from this report and the meta-analysis that certain types of UPFs can be incorporated into a healthy diet and don’t need to be avoided entirely. 

Dr. Manson is Professor of Medicine and the Michael and Lee Bell Professor of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School, and Chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts. She reported receiving donations and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience.

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