Cardiology News

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

As physicians well know, magic wands don’t exist. If they did, every patient would recover in the exam room, prior authorization wouldn’t exist, and continuing medical education credits would be printed on bearer bonds.

But in the spirit of suspended disbelief, we asked physicians and other contributors what their three wishes would be for their patients, practice/hospital, and health systems. Because, hey – we all need to dream.
 

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct professor of pediatrics and community and family medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
Patients: An end to gun violence.
Practice/hospital: Adequate staffing and pediatric bed availability.
Health system: Universal access to health insurance.

Sarah G. Candler, MD, MPH, care team medical director and director of academic relations, Iora Primary Care, Northside Clinic, Houston
Patients: Systems of health that start with communities of safety, including access to affordable housing, food, transportation, and health care.
Practice/hospital: I.N.T.E.R.O.P.E.R.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y.
Health system: Clinician leadership that has the power (often aka funding) to do what’s right, not just what’s right in front of us.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, bioethicist, New York University Langone Health
Patients: I wish for patients in the United States greater access to affordable primary care. There are still too many people without insurance or a reasonably accessible quality provider. And I especially wish for the rapid expansion of affordable training programs to meet staffing needs, including more scholarships, 3-year programs, and more new primary care–oriented schools.
Hospital: Increased staffing, especially nursing. There are too many retirements, too much burnout, and too much privatization into boutique practices to ensure the ability to provide high-quality, safe, patient-oriented care.
Health system: I wish for health systems to seriously move into electronic medicine. While billing has become electronic, there is still much to be done to supplement diagnosis, training, and standardized data collection on key metrics. Systems are not yet behaving in a manner consistent with the hype in this regard.

Stephen Devries, MD, executive director, Gaples Institute (nonprofit) and adjunct associate professor of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston
Patients: Patients continue to demand more from their health care professionals and insist that they are offered evidence-based counseling on nutrition and lifestyle strategies.
Practice: Quality-based reimbursement for medical services will take hold that will incentivize much-needed preventive care.
Hospital: Hospitals will more fully embrace the role of serving as true centers of health and focus as much on preventive medicine as on the more lucrative areas of high-tech treatment.

Peter D. Friedmann, MD, MPH, chief research officer, Baystate Health, Springfield, Mass.
Seconded by: Elisabeth Poorman, MD, general internist, University of Washington Clinic, Kent
Patients: Don’t forget the ongoing epidemic of substance use disorder, a major cause of premature mortality. Descheduling of cannabis and expungement of cannabis-related convictions.
Practice/hospital: Commitment of hospitals and practices to address stigma and ensure delivery of medications for opioid use disorder in primary care, the emergency department, and inpatient settings.
Health system: Reform of antiquated methadone regulations to permit office-based prescription and pharmacy dispensing to treat opioid use disorder, as is the case in most of the world.

Robert Glatter, MD, emergency physician, New York
Patients: I want all patients to understand the enormous strain the health care system has been under – not just with the pandemic, the tripledemic, and mpox [previously called monkeypox], but well before the onset of these public health crises.
Hospital: The medical profession has endured not only burnout but a growing mental health crisis, staffing shortages, a physician addiction crisis, and increased attrition in the decade leading up to the pandemic. The pandemic was like a punch in the gut, occurring at the most inopportune time one could imagine.
Health system: The intersection of health and the state of our public health deserves important mention. Unless we take action to bolster our public health infrastructure, our health care system will be in jeopardy, unable to handle the next pandemic, which could be just around the corner.

William E. Golden, MD, medical director of Arkansas Medicaid, professor of medicine and public health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients: Affordable options for diabetes and obesity management.
Health system: Greater investment by health systems and third-party payers in primary care infrastructure.

Gregory A. Hood, MD, Baptist Health, Lexington, Ky.
Patients: To embrace the gift of getting out in the world, being active, and connecting with others – having put down the screens.
Health system: To be freed from the financial gamesmanship of the insurers as they continue to serve their goals of promoting their hedge fund investing over meaningful and productive partnering with primary care physicians, and that they gain insight that they are one of the main reasons they can’t find PCPs to connect with to render care in disadvantaged environments – because they made it economically impossible to do so.

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics and director of the division of general internal medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
Patients/Health system: I would wish for staged implementation of universal basic health coverage for all, perhaps closest to the French or Canadian model. This would need to be coupled with expanded funding for nursing education, graduate medical education, and tracing of other health-related professionals.

Harvey Hsu, MD, Banner Health, Phoenix
Patients: More clear guidelines that are simple to understand. This can apply to colonoscopy (now age 45), immunizations, blood pressure goals. I wish medications were not as expensive so patients can take the best medicine for them and not stop taking them when they hit their donut hole in coverage.
Practice: We have been functioning on a leaner basis to cut down costs. When the pandemic hit, turnover was high and we lost PAs, nurses, front-office staff, and physicians. Having adequate staffing is probably number one on many lists. One way we dealt with lack of staffing was converting in-person visits to telehealth. Video visits are paid the same as in-person visits, but if the patient could not get their video to work, then it would be a telephone visit. Now many insurances do not even pay for telephone visits. So I would wish that we could still be reimbursed for telehealth visits.
Health system: I would wish for our health system to recognize the extra work required to take care of patients while improving quality and meeting quality measures. Allowing more time for patient visits could be one way to meet those goals or having more support staff to make sure patients get their colonoscopy/mammograms done, improve their sugars, and take their medications.

Jan L. Shifren, MD, Vincent Trustees Professor, obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Midlife Women’s Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
Patients: I wish for patients to be actively involved in all aspects of their care, well informed with shared decision-making.
Practice: I wish for the enormous time demands of electronic medical records and documentation to not distract from the pleasure of caring for patients.
Health system: Patient care remains at the center of decisions and programs.

Timothy J. Joos, MD, MPH, internal medicine/pediatrics, Seattle
Health system: I wish someone could figure out how we could be reimbursed for the quality of care we provide instead of the volume of patients we see. I wish EMRs could become less complicated and more user-friendly rather than needing advanced training to use.

Peter Kovacs, MD, medical director, Kaali Institute IVF Center, Budapest
Patients: I work as an infertility specialist, so when we talk about infectious diseases and associated risks, we talk about a minimum of two (female and male partner) and ideally three (plus the pregnancy) individuals. We have learned that SARS-CoV-2 affects reproductive health. It may compromise sperm production, could delay fertility treatment, could be associated with lower success rates; and if the treatment is successful, it may harm the pregnant woman/fetus/newborn. The best preventive measure that we can offer is vaccination. One cannot overemphasize the importance of preventive measures, paying attention to personal hygiene and social distancing. Therefore, I wish those planning to become pregnant to listen to their health care provider and accept the recommended vaccines to minimize the risk of getting infected and to minimize the risk for severe disease, especially if one undergoes successful fertility treatment and achieves a long-desired pregnancy.
Practice: During the 2022 calendar year we had many days when one or more employees were out of work on sick leave. This puts extra stress on the others to allow uncompromised work in the clinic. In addition, we all have to work in a less-comfortable environment if we consider mask use every day, all day. For health care workers, vaccination is mandated but many still are affected by milder forms of coronavirus infection and other respiratory diseases. Therefore, I wish my colleagues patience toward the preventive measures to lower the individual risk for infections. As a result, hopefully we will have a less stressful 2023.
Health system: Many resources had to be delegated to dealing with acute and chronic COVID, and this was at the expense of routine daily elective and preventive medical services. I wish the health care system to return to normal daily operations, to have the personnel and financial resources to carry on with the required preventive and elective medical services to avoid long-term consequences of not being able to provide such services. It would be sad if we had to treat otherwise preventable illnesses in the upcoming years that went undiagnosed and/or were not properly managed due to limited resources as the result of the pandemic.

Alan R. Nelson, MD, internist-endocrinologist, retired
Patients: Expansion of the FDA’s authority into over-the-counter drugs, including the veracity of their advertising claims.
Practice: Make diabetes drugs available at a reasonable cost.
Health system: With the expansion of Medicaid eligibility during COVID-19 coming to a close, federal government actions are necessary for those who once again have been dropped from coverage to have their legitimate needs met.

Kevin Powell, MD, PhD, St. Louis
Patients: To be cared for and about, and not just medically, even when illness strikes and health fails.
Hospitals: To hear the thankfulness of a grateful public for the care you provide, and to hear that above the angry noise of outraged individuals who spout vitriol and focus on how they believe others have harmed them.
Health system: A truer understanding of mercy and justice.

Margaret Thew, DNP, FNP-BC, director, department of adolescent medicine, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Seconded by: M. Susan Jay, MD, professor of pediatrics, chief of adolescent medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
My wish for patients, hospital, and system: health, calm, and grace.

Mark P. Trolice, MD, director of Fertility CARE, the IVF Center, Winter Park, Fla.
Patients: To be proactive in their health care and be their own advocates. Question when unclear and only consult credible resources.
Practice/hospital: Improve support of physicians and all health care providers to allow more input in their practice operations and growth.
Health system: Reduce interference of the “business of medicine” and ensure that the patient experience is the priority.

Charles P. Vega, MD, University of California, Irvine
Three minutes on a routine basis for everyone in health care to reflect on our blessings and the honor and gravity – as well as joy – that are integral to health care. Three minutes that will also help us to recognize our challenges and put them in the proper context. I know 3 minutes is not meeting any standard for reflective practice. But it’s 3 minutes more than I have right now.

Karen Breach Washington, MD, medical director of WellCare of North Carolina/Centene, Charlotte
Seconded by: Lillian M. Beard, MD, physician director, Children’s Pediatricians and Associates, Silver Spring, Md.
Patients: Access to affordable health care.
Hospital: Resources to care for patients (sufficient number of beds and a healthy staff).
Health system: Equity for all.

Andrew Wilner, MD, host of the podcast “The Art of Medicine with Dr. Andrew Wilner,” www.andrewwilner.com
Let’s put patients first! Too many extraneous considerations other than the patient’s best interest obstruct optimal patient care.

Here are just a few examples of patients coming last instead of first.

• If a patient needs to start a new medication in hospital, we shouldn’t have to wait until the patient is an outpatient because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If there’s a new medication that’s better than the old medication, we shouldn’t be forced to choose the old medication and provide inferior care because “that’s when insurance will pay.”
• If patients need to stay in hospital, we shouldn’t be pressured to discharge them because the hospital has decided that decreasing “length of stay” is its highest priority.

Dr. Francis Peabody said it best in 1927: “The secret of the care of the patient is in caring for the patient.” How hard is that?

In 2023, why don’t we follow Dr. Peabody’s sage advice from nearly 100 years ago and see what happens?
 

James M. Wooten, PharmD, University of Missouri–Kansas City, University Health, Kansas City, Mo.
Patients: I want patients to understand and properly realize the advantage of vaccinations – not only for COVID-19 but also for influenza. There is so much misinformation that I spend a lot of time trying to convince patients to get vaccinated. Most patients don’t realize that through their lives, most of them have already been vaccinated for something just to be able to attend school. How the COVID-19 vaccine created so much stigma makes little sense to me. I also want patients to understand that COVID-19 vaccination and boosters do not always prevent infection but will many times prevent severe infection. I believe that better patient communication and education is the key and will always be the key to improving vaccination numbers. Not only communicating and educating patients on vaccination itself but also making patients realize that personal vaccination decisions may affect what happens to your neighbor. Allowing infection means that you may be more likely to infect someone else. As a society, we must take care of each other.
Health system: It will be interesting to see what happens when vaccines are no longer reimbursed by the federal government. Understanding which vaccines work best and are better tolerated will be key to choosing appropriate vaccine brands. Health care providers will need to be very selective regarding which vaccines are selected for formulary inclusion. Thorough meta-analysis studies must be done to provide more evaluable information to allow for appropriate selection. “Knowledge is power!” Appropriate knowledge will help distinguish which vaccines work best for various patient populations.

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

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

Pigs have been long used in medical schools to teach surgical techniques and, more recently, in research trials and experimental xenotransplantation procedures. But given the rise of alternative simulation technology and mounting pressure from animal rights groups and lawmakers, animal labs for medical training have become less common.

Just last month, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit group with a decades-long stance against the use of animals in medical education and research, placed billboards around the Portland, Ore., area demanding that Oregon Health and Science University stop using pigs to teach surgical residents.

Undergraduate medical programs no longer use live animals. But a small number of graduate medical education programs still use animals, predominantly pigs, to train physicians in subspecialties like internal medicine, emergency medicine, surgery, and anesthesiology, John Pippin, MD, FACC, director of academic affairs at PCRM, told this news organization.

Dr. Pippin says residents practice establishing emergency airways, inserting chest tubes, and accessing blood vessels on anesthetized pigs before euthanizing them.

Swine lab advocates say pigs make ideal training subjects because of their similarities to humans, including comparably sized organs like the heart, lungs, and kidneys. Pigs share about 85% of their DNA with people. Where pig skin alternatives may suffice for less invasive procedures, supporters say residents’ experiences with live tissue are irreplaceable.

In a statement, Sara Hottman, associate director of media relations at Oregon Health and Science University, told this news organization the school “only uses animal models in its surgical training program when nonanimal methods are inadequate or too dangerous for human participants.”

“We believe that the education and experience surgical trainees gain through the use of relevant animal models are essential to ensuring future surgeons have the knowledge and skills necessary to provide safe, high-quality care.”

Ms. Hottman also noted that the university continues to evaluate alternatives and looks forward to when nonanimal “surgical training methods are capable of faithfully modeling the complexity of a living system,” such as in the management of critical internal complications.

But Dr. Pippin argues that residents can gain sufficient expertise through simulators and hands-on training in the operating room, and that the differences between humans and pigs are too vast to provide meaningful clinical data or skills.

“Pigs have different genetic influences and very thick, tough skin,” he said. If you use the same pressure on a human that you learned on a pig, he added, “you’d slice right through the trachea. Whatever you think you find out in animals, you have to learn all over again with humans.”

Undergraduate medical education programs in the United States and Canada abandoned the practice of using live animals, including pigs, by 2016, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and the University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, last to announce their shift away from the controversial teaching model following campaigns by PCRM.

Today, most residency training programs have followed suit. Pippin said that pediatric residencies no longer use animals, and all trauma and anesthesiology programs have ceased such practices except two. Just 3% of emergency medicine programs continue to use animals, as do about 21% of surgical residencies, he said, based on PCRM’s latest surveys.
 

A public debate

Occasionally, PCRM goes public with a campaign against a residency program “if that’s the only way to win,” Dr. Pippin said.

In addition to billboards, the group has held protests, circulated petitions, and filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the entity responsible for overseeing the health and welfare of animals used in medical training and research.

In 2021, spurred by a complaint from PCRM, APHIS launched an investigation into the University of Cincinnati’s surgical residency program. At the time, a university spokesperson acknowledged the school’s limited use of pigs to train “highly-skilled, well-prepared surgeons in the most advanced, complex, real-world needs, procedures, and techniques,” adding that the training methods were endorsed by the American College of Surgeons and in compliance with federal guidelines.

Residency programs have caught the attention of state lawmakers, too. In 2020, bills introduced in both the Rhode Island House and Senate sought to ban the use of live animals in medical training when “there is an alternate teaching method that teaches the medical procedure or lesson without the use of an animal.” Violators would incur misdemeanor charges and monetary fines of up to $1,000 per animal.

The bills – backed by PCRM – targeted Brown University’s emergency medicine residency program, Providence, R.I., which sponsoring legislators said was the last program in New England still using the “outdated” and “unnecessary” method.

In testimony before lawmakers, the school said fewer than 15 pigs participate in the annual training, and faculty spoke about the benefits of the experience.

“If it was your brother or sister, or your mother or father who had to come in and get this procedure done, would you want the physician who’s doing it to be the one who does it for the very first time on a human being, on live tissue? Or do you want that provider to have only practiced on plastic and rubber?” said Nicholas Musisca, MD, an assistant program director with Brown University’s emergency medicine residency, NBC affiliate WJAR reported.

The bills have since stalled, and PCRM held a protest at Brown University in October 2022. In response, a university spokesperson told the Brown Daily Herald, “effective synthetic model alternatives simply do not exist for every complex medical procedure that an emergency physician must be prepared to perform,” including establishing an airway in adults and pediatric patients with severe facial trauma.
 

By the numbers

Annual reports from APHIS do not show the number of pigs dedicated solely to residency training. Instead, reporting indicates the number of animals “upon which experiments, teaching, research, surgery, or tests were conducted involving accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used.”

For fiscal year 2021 – the most recent data available – Oregon Health and Science University had 154 pigs under its control, while the University of Cincinnati and Brown University had 118 and 71 pigs, respectively, according to APHIS. Primates were more commonly used at Oregon Health and Science University and guinea pigs at the University of Cincinnati.

Similarly, the Association of American Medical Colleges supports the “use of animals to meet essential educational objectives [across] the medical education continuum. ... Further restrictions on the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research and education threatens progress in health care and disease prevention.”

The debate will likely rage on. “The one thing we don’t do is give up,” Dr. Pippin said.

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.