Cardiology News

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A daily low dose of colchicine significantly reduces ischemic cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a recent myocardial infarction (MI). 

METHODOLOGY:

• After an MI, patients with vs without T2D have a higher risk for another cardiovascular event.
• The Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT), a randomized, double-blinded trial, found a lower risk for ischemic cardiovascular events with 0.5 mg colchicine taken daily vs placebo, initiated within 30 days of an MI.
• Researchers conducted a prespecified subgroup analysis of 959 adult patients with T2D (mean age, 62.4 years; 22.2% women) in COLCOT (462 patients in colchicine and 497 patients in placebo groups).
• The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, MI, stroke, or urgent hospitalization for angina requiring coronary revascularization within a median 23 months.
• The patients were taking a variety of appropriate medications, including aspirin and another antiplatelet agent and a statin (98%-99%) and metformin (75%-76%).

TAKEAWAY:

• The risk for the primary endpoint was reduced by 35% in patients with T2D who received colchicine than in those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; P = .03).
• The primary endpoint event rate per 100 patient-months was significantly lower in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.53; P = .01).
• The frequencies of adverse events were similar in both the treatment and placebo groups (14.6% and 12.8%, respectively; P = .41), with gastrointestinal adverse events being the most common.
• In COLCOT, patients with T2D had a 1.86-fold higher risk for a primary endpoint cardiovascular event, but there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between those with and without T2D on colchicine.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients with both T2D and a recent MI derive a large benefit from inflammation-reducing therapy with colchicine,” the authors noted.

SOURCE:

This study, led by François Roubille, University Hospital of Montpellier, France, was published online on January 5, 2024, in Diabetes Care. 

LIMITATIONS:

Patients were not stratified at inclusion for the presence of diabetes. Also, the study did not evaluate the role of glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as the effects of different glucose-lowering medications or possible hypoglycemic episodes.

DISCLOSURES:

The COLCOT study was funded by the Government of Quebec, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and philanthropic foundations. Coauthors Jean-Claude Tardif and Wolfgang Koenig declared receiving research grants, honoraria, advisory board fees, and lecture fees from pharmaceutical companies, as well as having other ties with various sources.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

While low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are much more abundant than lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] particles and carry the greatest overall risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), on a per-particle basis, Lp(a) is associated with about six times the atherogenic risk for LDL, new observational research suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To compare the atherogenicity of Lp(a) relative to LDL on a per-particle basis, researchers used a genetic analysis because Lp(a) and LDL both contain one apolipoprotein B (apoB) per particle.
• In a genome-wide association study of 502,413 UK Biobank participants, they identified genetic variants uniquely affecting plasma levels of either Lp(a) or LDL particles.
• For these two genetic clusters, they related the change in apoB to the respective change in CHD risk, which allowed them to directly compare the atherogenicity of LDL and Lp(a), particle to particle.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds ratio for CHD for a 50 nmol/L higher Lp(a)-apoB was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.33) compared with 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.05) for the same increment in LDL-apoB.
• Additional supporting evidence was provided by using polygenic scores to rank participants according to the difference in Lp(a)-apoB vs LDL-apoB, which revealed a greater risk for CHD per 50 nmol/L apoB for the Lp(a) cluster (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.36-1.58) than the LDL cluster (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).
• Based on the data, the researchers estimate that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) is roughly sixfold greater (point estimate of 6.6; 95% CI, 5.1-8.8) than that of LDL on a per-particle basis.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are two clinical implications. First, to completely characterize atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, it is imperative to measure Lp(a) in all adult patients at least once. Second, these studies provide a rationale that targeting Lp(a) with potent and specific drugs may lead to clinically meaningful benefit,” wrote the authors of an accompanying commentary on the study.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Elias Björnson, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, and an editorial by Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Vera Bittner, MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The UK Biobank consists primarily of a Caucasian population, and confirmatory studies in more diverse samples are needed. The working range for the Lp(a) assay used in the study did not cover the full range of Lp(a) values seen in the population. Variations in Lp(a)-apoB and LDL-apoB were estimated from genetic analysis and not measured specifically in biochemical assays.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Some authors received honoraria from the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

While low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are much more abundant than lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] particles and carry the greatest overall risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), on a per-particle basis, Lp(a) is associated with about six times the atherogenic risk for LDL, new observational research suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To compare the atherogenicity of Lp(a) relative to LDL on a per-particle basis, researchers used a genetic analysis because Lp(a) and LDL both contain one apolipoprotein B (apoB) per particle.
• In a genome-wide association study of 502,413 UK Biobank participants, they identified genetic variants uniquely affecting plasma levels of either Lp(a) or LDL particles.
• For these two genetic clusters, they related the change in apoB to the respective change in CHD risk, which allowed them to directly compare the atherogenicity of LDL and Lp(a), particle to particle.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds ratio for CHD for a 50 nmol/L higher Lp(a)-apoB was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.33) compared with 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.05) for the same increment in LDL-apoB.
• Additional supporting evidence was provided by using polygenic scores to rank participants according to the difference in Lp(a)-apoB vs LDL-apoB, which revealed a greater risk for CHD per 50 nmol/L apoB for the Lp(a) cluster (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.36-1.58) than the LDL cluster (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).
• Based on the data, the researchers estimate that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) is roughly sixfold greater (point estimate of 6.6; 95% CI, 5.1-8.8) than that of LDL on a per-particle basis.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are two clinical implications. First, to completely characterize atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, it is imperative to measure Lp(a) in all adult patients at least once. Second, these studies provide a rationale that targeting Lp(a) with potent and specific drugs may lead to clinically meaningful benefit,” wrote the authors of an accompanying commentary on the study.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Elias Björnson, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, and an editorial by Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Vera Bittner, MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The UK Biobank consists primarily of a Caucasian population, and confirmatory studies in more diverse samples are needed. The working range for the Lp(a) assay used in the study did not cover the full range of Lp(a) values seen in the population. Variations in Lp(a)-apoB and LDL-apoB were estimated from genetic analysis and not measured specifically in biochemical assays.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Some authors received honoraria from the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

While low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are much more abundant than lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] particles and carry the greatest overall risk for coronary heart disease (CHD), on a per-particle basis, Lp(a) is associated with about six times the atherogenic risk for LDL, new observational research suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• To compare the atherogenicity of Lp(a) relative to LDL on a per-particle basis, researchers used a genetic analysis because Lp(a) and LDL both contain one apolipoprotein B (apoB) per particle.
• In a genome-wide association study of 502,413 UK Biobank participants, they identified genetic variants uniquely affecting plasma levels of either Lp(a) or LDL particles.
• For these two genetic clusters, they related the change in apoB to the respective change in CHD risk, which allowed them to directly compare the atherogenicity of LDL and Lp(a), particle to particle.

TAKEAWAY:

• The odds ratio for CHD for a 50 nmol/L higher Lp(a)-apoB was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.24-1.33) compared with 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.05) for the same increment in LDL-apoB.
• Additional supporting evidence was provided by using polygenic scores to rank participants according to the difference in Lp(a)-apoB vs LDL-apoB, which revealed a greater risk for CHD per 50 nmol/L apoB for the Lp(a) cluster (hazard ratio [HR], 1.47; 95% CI, 1.36-1.58) than the LDL cluster (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05).
• Based on the data, the researchers estimate that the atherogenicity of Lp(a) is roughly sixfold greater (point estimate of 6.6; 95% CI, 5.1-8.8) than that of LDL on a per-particle basis.

IN PRACTICE:

“There are two clinical implications. First, to completely characterize atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, it is imperative to measure Lp(a) in all adult patients at least once. Second, these studies provide a rationale that targeting Lp(a) with potent and specific drugs may lead to clinically meaningful benefit,” wrote the authors of an accompanying commentary on the study.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Elias Björnson, PhD, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, and an editorial by Sotirios Tsimikas, MD, University of California, San Diego, and Vera Bittner, MD, University of Alabama at Birmingham, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The UK Biobank consists primarily of a Caucasian population, and confirmatory studies in more diverse samples are needed. The working range for the Lp(a) assay used in the study did not cover the full range of Lp(a) values seen in the population. Variations in Lp(a)-apoB and LDL-apoB were estimated from genetic analysis and not measured specifically in biochemical assays.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Some authors received honoraria from the pharmaceutical industry. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. There has been an explosion of interest recently in bills that propose to extend medical assistance in dying to more Americans as states begin to contemplate legalization.

Right now, there are 10 states and the District of Columbia that have had some version of medical assistance in dying approved and on the books. That basically means that about 20% of Americans have access where they live to a physician who can prescribe a lethal dose of medication to them if they’re terminally ill and can ingest the medication themselves. That leaves many Americans not covered by this kind of access to this kind of service.

Many of you watching this may live in states where it is legal, like Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Colorado, and Hawaii. I know many doctors say, “I’m not going to do that.” It’s not something that anyone is compelling a doctor to do. For some Americans, access is not just about where they live but whether there is a doctor willing to participate with them in bringing about their accelerated death, knowing that they’re inevitably going to die.

There’s not much we can do about that. It’s up to the conscience of each physician as to what they’re comfortable with. Certainly, there are other things that can be done to extend the possibility of having this available.

One thing that’s taking place is that, after lawsuits were filed, Vermont and Oregon have given up on their residency requirement, so you don’t have to be there 6 months or a year in order to use this opportunity. It’s legal now to move to the state or visit the state, and as soon as you get there, sign up for this kind of end-of-life intervention.

New Jersey is also being sued. I’ll predict that every state that has a residency requirement, when sued in court, is going to lose because we’ve long recognized the right of Americans to seek out healthcare in the United States, wherever they want to go.

If some states have made this a legitimate medical procedure, courts are going to say you can’t restrict it only to state residents. If someone wants to use a service, they’re entitled to show up from another state or another place and use it. I’m not sure about foreign nationals, but I’m very sure that Americans can go state to state in search of legitimate medical procedures.

The other bills that are out there, however, are basically saying they want to emulate Oregon, Washington, and the other states and say that the terminally ill, with severe restrictions, are going to be able to get this service without going anywhere.

The restrictions include a diagnosis of terminal illness and that you have to be deemed mentally competent. You can’t use this if you have Alzheimer’s or severe depression. You have to make a request twice with a week or two in between to make sure that your request is authentic. And obviously, everyone is on board to make sure that you’re not being coerced or pushed somehow into requesting a somewhat earlier death than you would have experienced without having the availability of the pills.

You also have to take the pills yourself or be able to pull a switch so that you could use a feeding tube–type administration. If you can’t do that, say due to ALS, you’re not eligible to use medical aid in dying. It’s a pretty restricted intervention.

Many people who get pills after going through these restrictions in the states that permit it don’t use it. As many as one third say they like having it there as a safety valve or a parachute, but once they know they could end their life sooner, then they’re going to stick it out.

Should states make this legal? New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and many other states have bills that are moving through. I’m going to say yes. We’ve had Oregon and Washington since the late 1990s with medical aid in dying on the books. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of pushing people to use this, of bias against the disabled, or bigotry against particular ethnic or racial groups being used to encourage people to end their life sooner.

I think it is an option that Americans want. I think it’s an option that makes some sense. I’m well aware that we also have to make sure that people know about hospice. In some of these states, medical aid in dying is offered as a part of hospice — not all, but a few. Not everybody wants hospice once they realize that they’re dying and that it is coming relatively soon. They may want to leave with family present, with a ceremony, or with a quality of life that they desire.

Past experience says let’s continue to expand availability in each state. Let’s also realize that we have to keep the restrictions in place on how it’s used because they have protected us against abuse. Let’s understand that every doctor has an option to do this or not do this. It’s a matter of conscience and a matter of comfort.

I think legalization is the direction we’re going to be going in. Getting rid of the residency requirements that have been around, as I think courts are going to overturn them, also gives a push to the idea that once the service is in this many states, it’s something that should be available if there are doctors willing to do it.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. New York, NY. Thank you for watching.

Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position)
• Serves as a contributing author and adviser for: Medscape

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Circulating levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) may be a marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in healthy young adults, small study finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• A secondary analysis of the Activating Brown Adipose Tissue Through Exercise (ACTIBATE) trial assessed the association between serum 25(OH)D levels and CVD risk factors.
• The cross-sectional study used baseline data of in 177 healthy sedentary adults ages 18-25 years (65% women; all White individuals), who were recruited between October 2015 and December 2016 from Granada, a region in the south of Spain.
• Study participants were nonsmokers, led a sedentary lifestyle, and did not have a prior history of CVD or chronic illnesses.
• The CVD risk factors included anthropometrical and body composition profiles, glucose and lipid metabolism, liver, and pro- and anti-inflammatory biomarkers.
• 25(OH)D serum concentrations were measured with a competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay and defined as deficient (< 20 ng/mL), insufficient (21-29 ng/mL), or normal (> 30 ng/mL).

TAKEAWAY:

• The  levels correlated inversely with body mass index (BMI; standardized regression coefficient [beta], −0.177; P = .018), fat mass index (beta, −0.195; P = .011), and systolic blood pressure (beta, −0.137; P = .038), after adjusting for sex.
• Glucose metabolism markers (serum glucose and insulin concentrations, insulin/glucose ratio, and homeostatic model assessment of  index) also correlated inversely with vitamin D levels.
• The trend was similar for liver markers serum γ-glutamyl transferase and alkaline phosphatase) and the anti-inflammatory marker interleukin-4.
• BMI, waist/hip ratio, fat mass index, blood pressure, and levels of glucose, insulin, , and liver markers were higher in the 44 participants with vitamin D deficiency vs 41 participants with normal vitamin D levels.

IN PRACTICE:

“Collectively, these findings support the idea that 25(OH)D concentrations may be used as a useful marker of CVD status, which can be easily monitored in young individuals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by first author Francisco J. AmaroGahete, MD, PhD, from the Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain, who also holds positions in other institutions. It was published online in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not establish causal relationships due to its cross-sectional design. The results might not apply to younger or older people from different locations and ethnic backgrounds. The gold standard method for analyzing vitamin D levels, liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry, was not used in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spanish Ministry of Education, AstraZeneca HealthCare Foundation, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Circulating levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) may be a marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in healthy young adults, small study finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• A secondary analysis of the Activating Brown Adipose Tissue Through Exercise (ACTIBATE) trial assessed the association between serum 25(OH)D levels and CVD risk factors.
• The cross-sectional study used baseline data of in 177 healthy sedentary adults ages 18-25 years (65% women; all White individuals), who were recruited between October 2015 and December 2016 from Granada, a region in the south of Spain.
• Study participants were nonsmokers, led a sedentary lifestyle, and did not have a prior history of CVD or chronic illnesses.
• The CVD risk factors included anthropometrical and body composition profiles, glucose and lipid metabolism, liver, and pro- and anti-inflammatory biomarkers.
• 25(OH)D serum concentrations were measured with a competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay and defined as deficient (< 20 ng/mL), insufficient (21-29 ng/mL), or normal (> 30 ng/mL).

TAKEAWAY:

• The  levels correlated inversely with body mass index (BMI; standardized regression coefficient [beta], −0.177; P = .018), fat mass index (beta, −0.195; P = .011), and systolic blood pressure (beta, −0.137; P = .038), after adjusting for sex.
• Glucose metabolism markers (serum glucose and insulin concentrations, insulin/glucose ratio, and homeostatic model assessment of  index) also correlated inversely with vitamin D levels.
• The trend was similar for liver markers serum γ-glutamyl transferase and alkaline phosphatase) and the anti-inflammatory marker interleukin-4.
• BMI, waist/hip ratio, fat mass index, blood pressure, and levels of glucose, insulin, , and liver markers were higher in the 44 participants with vitamin D deficiency vs 41 participants with normal vitamin D levels.

IN PRACTICE:

“Collectively, these findings support the idea that 25(OH)D concentrations may be used as a useful marker of CVD status, which can be easily monitored in young individuals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by first author Francisco J. AmaroGahete, MD, PhD, from the Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain, who also holds positions in other institutions. It was published online in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not establish causal relationships due to its cross-sectional design. The results might not apply to younger or older people from different locations and ethnic backgrounds. The gold standard method for analyzing vitamin D levels, liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry, was not used in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spanish Ministry of Education, AstraZeneca HealthCare Foundation, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Circulating levels of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) may be a marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in healthy young adults, small study finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• A secondary analysis of the Activating Brown Adipose Tissue Through Exercise (ACTIBATE) trial assessed the association between serum 25(OH)D levels and CVD risk factors.
• The cross-sectional study used baseline data of in 177 healthy sedentary adults ages 18-25 years (65% women; all White individuals), who were recruited between October 2015 and December 2016 from Granada, a region in the south of Spain.
• Study participants were nonsmokers, led a sedentary lifestyle, and did not have a prior history of CVD or chronic illnesses.
• The CVD risk factors included anthropometrical and body composition profiles, glucose and lipid metabolism, liver, and pro- and anti-inflammatory biomarkers.
• 25(OH)D serum concentrations were measured with a competitive chemiluminescence immunoassay and defined as deficient (< 20 ng/mL), insufficient (21-29 ng/mL), or normal (> 30 ng/mL).

TAKEAWAY:

• The  levels correlated inversely with body mass index (BMI; standardized regression coefficient [beta], −0.177; P = .018), fat mass index (beta, −0.195; P = .011), and systolic blood pressure (beta, −0.137; P = .038), after adjusting for sex.
• Glucose metabolism markers (serum glucose and insulin concentrations, insulin/glucose ratio, and homeostatic model assessment of  index) also correlated inversely with vitamin D levels.
• The trend was similar for liver markers serum γ-glutamyl transferase and alkaline phosphatase) and the anti-inflammatory marker interleukin-4.
• BMI, waist/hip ratio, fat mass index, blood pressure, and levels of glucose, insulin, , and liver markers were higher in the 44 participants with vitamin D deficiency vs 41 participants with normal vitamin D levels.

IN PRACTICE:

“Collectively, these findings support the idea that 25(OH)D concentrations may be used as a useful marker of CVD status, which can be easily monitored in young individuals,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by first author Francisco J. AmaroGahete, MD, PhD, from the Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, Spain, who also holds positions in other institutions. It was published online in the Journal of Endocrinological Investigation.

LIMITATIONS:

This study could not establish causal relationships due to its cross-sectional design. The results might not apply to younger or older people from different locations and ethnic backgrounds. The gold standard method for analyzing vitamin D levels, liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry, was not used in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spanish Ministry of Education, AstraZeneca HealthCare Foundation, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

People who mainly sit while on the job increase their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease (CVD) by more than one third compared with peers who largely don’t sit at work, new research shows. 

However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say. 

“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan. 

“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York. 

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart 

2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity. 

For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk. 

Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected. 

During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group. 

In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work. 

Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05). 

Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work. 

“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote. 

“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added. 

Simple Yet Profound Message 

Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting. 

The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.

“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added. 

Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A history of cancer is an independent predictor of major cardiovascular events in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Cancer should be considered a new cardiovascular risk factor in primary and secondary prevention, according to a study presented at the 2023 American Heart Association Congress in Philadelphia.

“We believe that this finding should, in the future, at least at the time of discharge or the end of oncologic treatment, [encourage] the pursuit of much more demanding cardiovascular primary prevention goals than in the general population, for example, equating it to the situation of a patient with diabetes or chronic renal failure,” said lead author Renzo Melchiori, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Austral in Pilar, Argentina. 

The researchers also advocate for intensifying cardiovascular control measures in secondary prevention for these patients, reconsidering goals, and ensuring compliance with prescribed pharmacological regimens and healthy lifestyle habits.

“Previously, when a patient had oncological pathology, thinking about associated cardiovascular risk seemed somewhat superfluous. But today, oncological diseases are treated so effectively, increasing survival and life expectancy, that we begin to focus on what happens with the arteries of these patients after treatment,” said Dr. Melchiori.

Higher Incidence Density 

The retrospective analysis included 937 patients of both sexes aged 18 years and older who underwent coronary angioplasty for acute coronary syndrome between 2008 and 2022 at a university hospital. Of these participants, 89 (9.5%) had a history of cancer, with a median time since oncologic diagnosis of around 2 years for solid and hematologic tumors. Most participants had treated and resolved cancer.

Over a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 14-72 months), the cumulative incidence rates of a major cardiovascular event (nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, or new angioplasty) were 22.2% (155/698) and 28.4% (25/88) in the groups without and with a history of cancer, respectively. The incidence density was significantly higher in the group with an oncologic history than in the group without such a history: 0.78 events/100 patients/month vs 0.48 events/100 patients/month (P = .01).

Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a higher probability of a major cardiovascular event in the group of patients with cancer or a history of cancer (P = .0086). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, cancer history was an independent predictor of major cardiovascular events adjusted for other risk factors such as age, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, and family history (hazard ratio, 1.66; P = .025).

Dr. Melchiori clarified that the increased incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with cancer or a history of cancer cannot be attributed to differences in percutaneous intervention or the indication or compliance of post-treatment pharmacological therapy.

In addition, the specialist acknowledged that due to the sample size, discrimination by cancer type, disease stage, or therapeutic strategies couldn’t be performed. A subanalysis, which has not been presented, indicated that the effect could not be explained solely by the application of radiotherapy or chemotherapy in the 90 days before angioplasty — two factors that cause arterial inflammation.

Intensifying Prevention Measures

Two independent experts told this news organization that the new study is "interesting" and reinforces the close connection between oncologic and cardiovascular pathology.

Andrés Daniele, MD, cardiologist and president of the Argentine Cardio-Oncology Association, a local chapter of the International Cardio-Oncology Society, emphasized that the study “reiterates an observation seen in other works: A higher rate of atherosclerotic pathology and cardiovascular events in patients with a history of cancer. And that has a reason to be: Both pathologies present common risk factors, and on the other hand, there is greater endothelial dysfunction secondary to the inflammatory syndrome and oncologic therapies.”

“There needs to be a continuum in the intensification of measures in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention in cancer survivors, whether in remission or with chronic disease. We need to be very aggressive in managing risk factors and insist that patients who have had a cardiovascular event enter cardiovascular rehabilitation therapies,” said Dr. Daniele, who also heads the Cardio-Oncology Department at the centenary Roffo Institute of Oncology at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The study provides a valuable contribution because “we need to understand the epidemiology and natural history of patients with cancer at risk of developing cardiovascular complications to implement personalized cardiovascular prevention strategies,” said Teresa López Fernández, MD, cardiologist, coordinator of the Cardio-Oncology Program at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid, member of the Cardio-Oncology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Cardiology, member of the board of the International Cardio-Oncology Society, and cochair of the first clinical practice guidelines in cardio-oncology of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We have to be aware that perhaps we should not guide ourselves in these patients with the usual risk stratification scores as cancer or cardiotoxic treatment are not included as variables. However, they require our attention and effort to improve their quality and quantity of life, avoiding potentially preventable cardiovascular events that could negatively impact the survival achieved thanks to advances in cancer treatments,” said Dr. López Fernández.

Dr. Melchiori and Dr. Daniele declared no relevant economic conflicts of interest. Dr. López Fernández reported relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall España, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte. 

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A history of cancer is an independent predictor of major cardiovascular events in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Cancer should be considered a new cardiovascular risk factor in primary and secondary prevention, according to a study presented at the 2023 American Heart Association Congress in Philadelphia.

“We believe that this finding should, in the future, at least at the time of discharge or the end of oncologic treatment, [encourage] the pursuit of much more demanding cardiovascular primary prevention goals than in the general population, for example, equating it to the situation of a patient with diabetes or chronic renal failure,” said lead author Renzo Melchiori, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Austral in Pilar, Argentina. 

The researchers also advocate for intensifying cardiovascular control measures in secondary prevention for these patients, reconsidering goals, and ensuring compliance with prescribed pharmacological regimens and healthy lifestyle habits.

“Previously, when a patient had oncological pathology, thinking about associated cardiovascular risk seemed somewhat superfluous. But today, oncological diseases are treated so effectively, increasing survival and life expectancy, that we begin to focus on what happens with the arteries of these patients after treatment,” said Dr. Melchiori.

Higher Incidence Density 

The retrospective analysis included 937 patients of both sexes aged 18 years and older who underwent coronary angioplasty for acute coronary syndrome between 2008 and 2022 at a university hospital. Of these participants, 89 (9.5%) had a history of cancer, with a median time since oncologic diagnosis of around 2 years for solid and hematologic tumors. Most participants had treated and resolved cancer.

Over a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 14-72 months), the cumulative incidence rates of a major cardiovascular event (nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, or new angioplasty) were 22.2% (155/698) and 28.4% (25/88) in the groups without and with a history of cancer, respectively. The incidence density was significantly higher in the group with an oncologic history than in the group without such a history: 0.78 events/100 patients/month vs 0.48 events/100 patients/month (P = .01).

Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a higher probability of a major cardiovascular event in the group of patients with cancer or a history of cancer (P = .0086). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, cancer history was an independent predictor of major cardiovascular events adjusted for other risk factors such as age, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, and family history (hazard ratio, 1.66; P = .025).

Dr. Melchiori clarified that the increased incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with cancer or a history of cancer cannot be attributed to differences in percutaneous intervention or the indication or compliance of post-treatment pharmacological therapy.

In addition, the specialist acknowledged that due to the sample size, discrimination by cancer type, disease stage, or therapeutic strategies couldn’t be performed. A subanalysis, which has not been presented, indicated that the effect could not be explained solely by the application of radiotherapy or chemotherapy in the 90 days before angioplasty — two factors that cause arterial inflammation.

Intensifying Prevention Measures

Two independent experts told this news organization that the new study is "interesting" and reinforces the close connection between oncologic and cardiovascular pathology.

Andrés Daniele, MD, cardiologist and president of the Argentine Cardio-Oncology Association, a local chapter of the International Cardio-Oncology Society, emphasized that the study “reiterates an observation seen in other works: A higher rate of atherosclerotic pathology and cardiovascular events in patients with a history of cancer. And that has a reason to be: Both pathologies present common risk factors, and on the other hand, there is greater endothelial dysfunction secondary to the inflammatory syndrome and oncologic therapies.”

“There needs to be a continuum in the intensification of measures in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention in cancer survivors, whether in remission or with chronic disease. We need to be very aggressive in managing risk factors and insist that patients who have had a cardiovascular event enter cardiovascular rehabilitation therapies,” said Dr. Daniele, who also heads the Cardio-Oncology Department at the centenary Roffo Institute of Oncology at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The study provides a valuable contribution because “we need to understand the epidemiology and natural history of patients with cancer at risk of developing cardiovascular complications to implement personalized cardiovascular prevention strategies,” said Teresa López Fernández, MD, cardiologist, coordinator of the Cardio-Oncology Program at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid, member of the Cardio-Oncology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Cardiology, member of the board of the International Cardio-Oncology Society, and cochair of the first clinical practice guidelines in cardio-oncology of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We have to be aware that perhaps we should not guide ourselves in these patients with the usual risk stratification scores as cancer or cardiotoxic treatment are not included as variables. However, they require our attention and effort to improve their quality and quantity of life, avoiding potentially preventable cardiovascular events that could negatively impact the survival achieved thanks to advances in cancer treatments,” said Dr. López Fernández.

Dr. Melchiori and Dr. Daniele declared no relevant economic conflicts of interest. Dr. López Fernández reported relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall España, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte. 

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A history of cancer is an independent predictor of major cardiovascular events in patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Cancer should be considered a new cardiovascular risk factor in primary and secondary prevention, according to a study presented at the 2023 American Heart Association Congress in Philadelphia.

“We believe that this finding should, in the future, at least at the time of discharge or the end of oncologic treatment, [encourage] the pursuit of much more demanding cardiovascular primary prevention goals than in the general population, for example, equating it to the situation of a patient with diabetes or chronic renal failure,” said lead author Renzo Melchiori, MD, a cardiologist at the University Hospital Austral in Pilar, Argentina. 

The researchers also advocate for intensifying cardiovascular control measures in secondary prevention for these patients, reconsidering goals, and ensuring compliance with prescribed pharmacological regimens and healthy lifestyle habits.

“Previously, when a patient had oncological pathology, thinking about associated cardiovascular risk seemed somewhat superfluous. But today, oncological diseases are treated so effectively, increasing survival and life expectancy, that we begin to focus on what happens with the arteries of these patients after treatment,” said Dr. Melchiori.

Higher Incidence Density 

The retrospective analysis included 937 patients of both sexes aged 18 years and older who underwent coronary angioplasty for acute coronary syndrome between 2008 and 2022 at a university hospital. Of these participants, 89 (9.5%) had a history of cancer, with a median time since oncologic diagnosis of around 2 years for solid and hematologic tumors. Most participants had treated and resolved cancer.

Over a median follow-up of 45 months (range, 14-72 months), the cumulative incidence rates of a major cardiovascular event (nonfatal stroke, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, or new angioplasty) were 22.2% (155/698) and 28.4% (25/88) in the groups without and with a history of cancer, respectively. The incidence density was significantly higher in the group with an oncologic history than in the group without such a history: 0.78 events/100 patients/month vs 0.48 events/100 patients/month (P = .01).

Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a higher probability of a major cardiovascular event in the group of patients with cancer or a history of cancer (P = .0086). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, cancer history was an independent predictor of major cardiovascular events adjusted for other risk factors such as age, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, and family history (hazard ratio, 1.66; P = .025).

Dr. Melchiori clarified that the increased incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with cancer or a history of cancer cannot be attributed to differences in percutaneous intervention or the indication or compliance of post-treatment pharmacological therapy.

In addition, the specialist acknowledged that due to the sample size, discrimination by cancer type, disease stage, or therapeutic strategies couldn’t be performed. A subanalysis, which has not been presented, indicated that the effect could not be explained solely by the application of radiotherapy or chemotherapy in the 90 days before angioplasty — two factors that cause arterial inflammation.

Intensifying Prevention Measures

Two independent experts told this news organization that the new study is "interesting" and reinforces the close connection between oncologic and cardiovascular pathology.

Andrés Daniele, MD, cardiologist and president of the Argentine Cardio-Oncology Association, a local chapter of the International Cardio-Oncology Society, emphasized that the study “reiterates an observation seen in other works: A higher rate of atherosclerotic pathology and cardiovascular events in patients with a history of cancer. And that has a reason to be: Both pathologies present common risk factors, and on the other hand, there is greater endothelial dysfunction secondary to the inflammatory syndrome and oncologic therapies.”

“There needs to be a continuum in the intensification of measures in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention in cancer survivors, whether in remission or with chronic disease. We need to be very aggressive in managing risk factors and insist that patients who have had a cardiovascular event enter cardiovascular rehabilitation therapies,” said Dr. Daniele, who also heads the Cardio-Oncology Department at the centenary Roffo Institute of Oncology at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The study provides a valuable contribution because “we need to understand the epidemiology and natural history of patients with cancer at risk of developing cardiovascular complications to implement personalized cardiovascular prevention strategies,” said Teresa López Fernández, MD, cardiologist, coordinator of the Cardio-Oncology Program at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid, member of the Cardio-Oncology Working Group of the Spanish Society of Cardiology, member of the board of the International Cardio-Oncology Society, and cochair of the first clinical practice guidelines in cardio-oncology of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We have to be aware that perhaps we should not guide ourselves in these patients with the usual risk stratification scores as cancer or cardiotoxic treatment are not included as variables. However, they require our attention and effort to improve their quality and quantity of life, avoiding potentially preventable cardiovascular events that could negatively impact the survival achieved thanks to advances in cancer treatments,” said Dr. López Fernández.

Dr. Melchiori and Dr. Daniele declared no relevant economic conflicts of interest. Dr. López Fernández reported relationships with Daiichi Sankyo, Almirall España, Janssen-Cilag, Bayer, Roche, Philips, and Incyte. 

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.