Cardiology News

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

With physicians under increasing pressure to see more patients in shorter office visits, developing a social media presence may offer valuable opportunities to connect with patients, explain procedures, combat misinformation, talk through a published article, and even share a joke or meme.

But there are caveats for doctors posting on social media platforms. This news organization spoke to four doctors who successfully use social media. Here is what they want you to know before you post – and how to make your posts personable and helpful to patients and your practice simultaneously.
 

Use social media for the right reasons

While you’re under no obligation to build a social media presence, if you’re going to do it, be sure your intentions are solid, said Don S. Dizon, MD, professor of medicine and professor of surgery at Brown University, Providence, R.I. Dr. Dizon, as @DoctorDon, has 44,700 TikTok followers and uses the platform to answer cancer-related questions.

“It should be your altruism that motivates you to post,” said Dr. Dizon, who is also associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Legorreta Cancer Center in Providence, R.I., and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital. “What we can do for society at large is to provide our input into issues, add informed opinions where there’s controversy, and address misinformation.”

If you don’t know where to start, consider seeking a digital mentor to talk through your options.

“You may never meet this person, but you should choose them if you like their style, their content, their delivery, and their perspective,” Dr. Dizon said. “Find another doctor out there on social media whom you feel you can emulate. Take your time, too. Soon enough, you’ll develop your own style and your own online persona.”
 

Post clear, accurate information

If you want to be lighthearted on social media, that’s your choice. But Jennifer Trachtenberg, a pediatrician with nearly 7,000 Instagram followers in New York who posts as @askdrjen, prefers to offer vaccine scheduling tips, alert parents about COVID-19 rates, and offer advice on cold and flu prevention.

“Right now, I’m mainly doing this to educate patients and make them aware of topics that I think are important and that I see my patients needing more information on,” she said. “We have to be clear: People take what we say seriously. So, while it’s important to be relatable, it’s even more important to share evidence-based information.”
 

Many patients get their information on social media

While patients once came to the doctor armed with information sourced via “Doctor Google,” today, just as many patients use social media to learn about their condition or the medications they’re taking.

Unfortunately, a recent Ohio State University, Columbus, study found that the majority of gynecologic cancer advice on TikTok, for example, was either misleading or inaccurate.

“This misinformation should be a motivator for physicians to explore the social media space,” Dr. Dizon said. “Our voices need to be on there.”
 

Break down barriers – and make connections

Mike Natter, MD, an endocrinologist in New York, has type 1 diabetes. This informs his work – and his life – and he’s passionate about sharing it with his 117,000 followers as @mike.natter on Instagram.

“A lot of type 1s follow me, so there’s an advocacy component to what I do,” he said. “I enjoy being able to raise awareness and keep people up to date on the newest research and treatment.”

But that’s not all: Dr. Natter is also an artist who went to art school before he went to medical school, and his account is rife with his cartoons and illustrations about everything from valvular disease to diabetic ketoacidosis.

“I found that I was drawing a lot of my notes in medical school,” he said. “When I drew my notes, I did quite well, and I think that using art and illustration is a great tool. It breaks down barriers and makes health information all the more accessible to everyone.”
 

Share your expertise as a doctor – and a person

As a mom and pediatrician, Krupa Playforth, MD, who practices in Vienna, Va., knows that what she posts carries weight. So, whether she’s writing about backpack safety tips, choking hazards, or separation anxiety, her followers can rest assured that she’s posting responsibly.

“Pediatricians often underestimate how smart parents are,” said Dr. Playforth, who has three kids, ages 8, 5, and 2, and has 137,000 followers on @thepediatricianmom, her Instagram account. “Their anxiety comes from an understandable place, which is why I see my role as that of a parent and pediatrician who can translate the knowledge pediatricians have into something parents can understand.”

Dr. Playforth, who jumped on social media during COVID-19 and experienced a positive response in her local community, said being on social media is imperative if you’re a pediatrician.

“This is the future of pediatric medicine in particular,” she said. “A lot of pediatricians don’t want to embrace social media, but I think that’s a mistake. After all, while parents think pediatricians have all the answers, when we think of our own children, most doctors are like other parents – we can’t think objectively about our kids. It’s helpful for me to share that and to help parents feel less alone.”

If you’re not yet using social media to the best of your physician abilities, you might take a shot at becoming widely recognizable. Pick a preferred platform, answer common patient questions, dispel medical myths, provide pertinent information, and let your personality shine.

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

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

There are no significant differences in 1-year mortality, survival to hospital discharge, severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD), and other outcomes post heart transplant between patients who receive a heart obtained by donation after circulatory death (DCD) and patients who receive a heart by donation after brain death (DBD), a new study has shown.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective review included 385 patients (median age, 57.4 years; 26% women; 72.5% White) who underwent a heart transplant at Vanderbilt University Medical Center from January 2020 to January 2023. Of these, 263 received DBD hearts, and 122 received DCD hearts.
• In the DCD group, 17% of hearts were recovered by use of ex vivo machine perfusion (EVP), and 83% by use of normothermic regional perfusion followed by static cold storage; 4% of DBD hearts were recovered by use of EVP, and 96% by use of static cold storage.
• The primary outcome was survival at 1 year after transplantation; key secondary outcomes included survival to hospital discharge, survival at 30 days and 6 months after transplantation, and severe PGD.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no difference in 1-year post-transplant survival between DCD (94.3%) and DBD (92.4%) recipients (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.81; P = .54), a finding that was unchanged when adjusted for recipient age.
• There were no significant differences in survival to hospital discharge (93.4% DBD vs. 94.5% DCD; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.26-1.99; P = .53), to 30 days (95.1% DBD vs. 96.7% DCD; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.22-2.05; P = .48), or to 6 months (92.8% DBD vs. 94.3% DCD; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.25-1.85; P = .45) after transplantation.
• The incidence of severe PGD was similar between groups (5.7% DCD vs. 5.7% DBD; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.41-2.4; P = .99).
• There were no significant between-group differences in other outcomes, including incidence of treated rejection and cases of cardiac allograft vasculopathy of grade 1 or greater on the International Society for scale at 1 year.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the growing body of evidence in support of DCD heart transplantation,” the authors write, potentially expanding the heart donor pool. They note that outcomes remained similar between groups despite higher-risk patients being overrepresented in the DCD cohort.

In an accompanying editorial, Sean P. Pinney, MD, Center for Cardiovascular Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a colleague called the results “impressive” and “encouraging,” although there are still “important unknowns,” including longer-term outcomes, the financial impact of DCD, and whether results can be replicated in other centers.

“These results provide confidence that DCD can be safely and effectively performed without compromising outcomes, at least in a large-volume center of excellence,” and help provide evidence “to support the spreading acceptance of DCD among heart transplant programs.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Hasan K. Siddiqi, MD, department of medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single center and had a retrospective design and a modest sample size that prevented adjustment for all potentially confounding variables. Meaningful differences among DCD recipients could not be explored with regard to organ recovery technique, and small but statistically meaningful differences in outcomes could not be detected, the authors note. Follow-up was limited to 1 year after transplantation.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pinney has received consulting fees from Abbott, ADI, Ancora, CareDx, ImpulseDynamics, Medtronic, Nuwellis, Procyrion, Restore Medical, Transmedics, and Valgen Medtech.

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

TOPLINE:

There are no significant differences in 1-year mortality, survival to hospital discharge, severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD), and other outcomes post heart transplant between patients who receive a heart obtained by donation after circulatory death (DCD) and patients who receive a heart by donation after brain death (DBD), a new study has shown.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective review included 385 patients (median age, 57.4 years; 26% women; 72.5% White) who underwent a heart transplant at Vanderbilt University Medical Center from January 2020 to January 2023. Of these, 263 received DBD hearts, and 122 received DCD hearts.
• In the DCD group, 17% of hearts were recovered by use of ex vivo machine perfusion (EVP), and 83% by use of normothermic regional perfusion followed by static cold storage; 4% of DBD hearts were recovered by use of EVP, and 96% by use of static cold storage.
• The primary outcome was survival at 1 year after transplantation; key secondary outcomes included survival to hospital discharge, survival at 30 days and 6 months after transplantation, and severe PGD.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no difference in 1-year post-transplant survival between DCD (94.3%) and DBD (92.4%) recipients (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.81; P = .54), a finding that was unchanged when adjusted for recipient age.
• There were no significant differences in survival to hospital discharge (93.4% DBD vs. 94.5% DCD; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.26-1.99; P = .53), to 30 days (95.1% DBD vs. 96.7% DCD; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.22-2.05; P = .48), or to 6 months (92.8% DBD vs. 94.3% DCD; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.25-1.85; P = .45) after transplantation.
• The incidence of severe PGD was similar between groups (5.7% DCD vs. 5.7% DBD; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.41-2.4; P = .99).
• There were no significant between-group differences in other outcomes, including incidence of treated rejection and cases of cardiac allograft vasculopathy of grade 1 or greater on the International Society for scale at 1 year.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the growing body of evidence in support of DCD heart transplantation,” the authors write, potentially expanding the heart donor pool. They note that outcomes remained similar between groups despite higher-risk patients being overrepresented in the DCD cohort.

In an accompanying editorial, Sean P. Pinney, MD, Center for Cardiovascular Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a colleague called the results “impressive” and “encouraging,” although there are still “important unknowns,” including longer-term outcomes, the financial impact of DCD, and whether results can be replicated in other centers.

“These results provide confidence that DCD can be safely and effectively performed without compromising outcomes, at least in a large-volume center of excellence,” and help provide evidence “to support the spreading acceptance of DCD among heart transplant programs.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Hasan K. Siddiqi, MD, department of medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single center and had a retrospective design and a modest sample size that prevented adjustment for all potentially confounding variables. Meaningful differences among DCD recipients could not be explored with regard to organ recovery technique, and small but statistically meaningful differences in outcomes could not be detected, the authors note. Follow-up was limited to 1 year after transplantation.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pinney has received consulting fees from Abbott, ADI, Ancora, CareDx, ImpulseDynamics, Medtronic, Nuwellis, Procyrion, Restore Medical, Transmedics, and Valgen Medtech.

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

TOPLINE:

There are no significant differences in 1-year mortality, survival to hospital discharge, severe primary graft dysfunction (PGD), and other outcomes post heart transplant between patients who receive a heart obtained by donation after circulatory death (DCD) and patients who receive a heart by donation after brain death (DBD), a new study has shown.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective review included 385 patients (median age, 57.4 years; 26% women; 72.5% White) who underwent a heart transplant at Vanderbilt University Medical Center from January 2020 to January 2023. Of these, 263 received DBD hearts, and 122 received DCD hearts.
• In the DCD group, 17% of hearts were recovered by use of ex vivo machine perfusion (EVP), and 83% by use of normothermic regional perfusion followed by static cold storage; 4% of DBD hearts were recovered by use of EVP, and 96% by use of static cold storage.
• The primary outcome was survival at 1 year after transplantation; key secondary outcomes included survival to hospital discharge, survival at 30 days and 6 months after transplantation, and severe PGD.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no difference in 1-year post-transplant survival between DCD (94.3%) and DBD (92.4%) recipients (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.81; P = .54), a finding that was unchanged when adjusted for recipient age.
• There were no significant differences in survival to hospital discharge (93.4% DBD vs. 94.5% DCD; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.26-1.99; P = .53), to 30 days (95.1% DBD vs. 96.7% DCD; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.22-2.05; P = .48), or to 6 months (92.8% DBD vs. 94.3% DCD; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.25-1.85; P = .45) after transplantation.
• The incidence of severe PGD was similar between groups (5.7% DCD vs. 5.7% DBD; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.41-2.4; P = .99).
• There were no significant between-group differences in other outcomes, including incidence of treated rejection and cases of cardiac allograft vasculopathy of grade 1 or greater on the International Society for scale at 1 year.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings add to the growing body of evidence in support of DCD heart transplantation,” the authors write, potentially expanding the heart donor pool. They note that outcomes remained similar between groups despite higher-risk patients being overrepresented in the DCD cohort.

In an accompanying editorial, Sean P. Pinney, MD, Center for Cardiovascular Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and a colleague called the results “impressive” and “encouraging,” although there are still “important unknowns,” including longer-term outcomes, the financial impact of DCD, and whether results can be replicated in other centers.

“These results provide confidence that DCD can be safely and effectively performed without compromising outcomes, at least in a large-volume center of excellence,” and help provide evidence “to support the spreading acceptance of DCD among heart transplant programs.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Hasan K. Siddiqi, MD, department of medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a single center and had a retrospective design and a modest sample size that prevented adjustment for all potentially confounding variables. Meaningful differences among DCD recipients could not be explored with regard to organ recovery technique, and small but statistically meaningful differences in outcomes could not be detected, the authors note. Follow-up was limited to 1 year after transplantation.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Pinney has received consulting fees from Abbott, ADI, Ancora, CareDx, ImpulseDynamics, Medtronic, Nuwellis, Procyrion, Restore Medical, Transmedics, and Valgen Medtech.

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

Patients with active cancer and newly diagnosed isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who received 12 months of edoxaban (Savaysa) had fewer thrombotic events at 1 year than those who received 3 months of treatment, without significantly increased bleeding, in the ONCO-DVT trial.

However, lead author Yugo Yamashita, MD, of Kyoto University noted that caution is needed when determining anticoagulation strategies in individual patients with distal DVT, especially those with high risk for bleeding.

Dr. Yamashita presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and the trial was simultaneously published in the journal Circulation.

“This is the first and only randomized trial to show the superiority of longer duration over shorter duration of anticoagulation therapy for reducing thrombotic events in cancer patients with isolated distal DVT,” he said in a press briefing.  

The results provide support for 12 months of edoxaban in patients with active cancer and isolated distal DVD, he said in an email.

However, “considering the risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulation therapy, physicians should make the decision of anticoagulation strategies for these patients based on risk-benefit balance of anticoagulation therapy in individual patients,” he stressed.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, “if you find minor DVT in cancer patients, please be careful, because their thrombotic risk was not low” in this trial, Dr. Yamashita said.  

The study was conducted in Japan, so whether or not the results are generalizable to other populations is not clear. “Subgroup analysis based on body weight did not show any signal of different effect,” he noted, which suggests that the main results could be applied to other populations, including the U.S. population. However, “generalizability of the current results should be carried out carefully.”  
 

Caution needed when translating findings into clinical practice

The assigned discussant, Teresa Lopez-Fernandez, MD, from La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was co-chairperson of 2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology, noted that the optimal anticoagulation therapy strategy is unclear in patients with cancer and isolated distal DVT.

“2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology and [European Society for Medical Oncology] guidelines from this year,” she said, “are both in agreement that we need to prolong anticoagulation [therapy to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE)] when active cancer exists, and particularly in patients with metastatic cancer. The problem is that none of this text refers specifically to distal DVT.”

The ONCO-DVT trial sheds light on this, but there are a few points to consider when interpreting the findings.

Major bleeding was slightly increased in the 12-month vs 3-month edoxaban groups, although this was not statistically significant, she noted. Moreover, 75% of the patients were treated with low-dose edoxaban, mainly due to their low weight. Also, bleeding risk probably differs in different cancer types.

“These are important things that we need to keep in mind when we try to transfer this data to [inform] our clinical practice,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said.

She drew attention to a recent study based on RIETE registry data that suggests that “isolated distal DVT is a big problem for patients with cancer in comparison with noncancer patients, where it seems it’s a low-risk problem.”

The main takeaways from ONCO-DVT, Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, are that it confirms that cancer-associated isolated distal DVT is a marker of poor prognosis, and it supports the need for extended anticoagulation in patients with active, ongoing cancer and isolated distal DVT.

However, “we need to be cautious to try to really understand what the bleeding risks of these patients are,” she said, “particularly because it is not always easy to transfer the results from an Asian population to other populations.”

There is also a need for further studies with other doses, with other novel oral anticoagulants, and in patients at high risk for bleeding, in clinical practice.

Dr. Yamashita said that the study suggests that there is a potential benefit of prolonged duration of anticoagulant therapy for some patients with isolated distal DVT, but not all patients should receive this dosing strategy, because some patients may be at high risk for bleeding or VTE recurrence. A subanalysis of data from ONCO-DVT study should shed further light on this.

“We need to individualize our risk stratification,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, adding that notably, “a lot of patients in the 12-month group did not continue with the 12-month treatment,” which may have affected bleeding results. Dr. Yamashita agreed.
 

Study design and findings

From April 2019 to June 2022, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 604 patients with active cancer who had newly diagnosed isolated distal DVT, confirmed by ultrasonography, and were scheduled for DVT treatment with anticoagulation therapy, at 60 centers.

Active cancer was defined as a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, etc.) within 6 months of randomization, or current recurrence, local invasion, distant metastases, or hematopoietic malignancy without complete remission.

The most common reasons for ultrasonography were elevated D-dimer levels (62%) and suspected DVT because of symptoms (20%).

The patients had a mean age of 70.8 years and 28% were men. The most common cancer sites were ovaries (14%), uterus (13%), lung (11%), colon (9%), and pancreas (8%), followed by stomach, blood, and breast (each 5%).  

The patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 12 months or 3 months of oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily or 30 mg once daily in patients with body weight of 60 kg or less, creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/minute, or concomitant treatment with a potent P-glycoprotein inhibitor.

After excluding 3 patients who withdrew consent, 601 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 296 patients in the 12-month edoxaban group and 305 patients in the 3-month edoxaban group.

About 70% of patients had a body weight of 60 kg or less and about 22% had a creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min. About three quarters received the lower dose of edoxaban.

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 223 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (66 patients had died and 7 were lost to follow-up). In the 3-month edoxaban group, 224 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (77 had died and 4 were lost to follow-up).

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 41% of the patients had discontinued treatment by 12 months. In the 3-month edoxaban group, 41% of patients had discontinued treatment by 3 months.

The primary endpoint – a symptomatic recurrent VTE event or VTE-related death – occurred in 3 of the 222 patients (1.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 210 (8.5%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (odds ratio,0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.44, P < .001). There were no VTE-related deaths.

The major secondary endpoint – major bleeding, according to International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria – occurred in 28 of the 210 patients (10.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 217 (7.6%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.75-2.41, P = NS).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include an open-label design, a lower-than-expected primary endpoint rate, and less than high adherence to edoxaban, as well as the need for caution when generalizing the results to other populations.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Yamashita disclosed receiving lecture fees from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and grant support from Bayer Healthcare and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Lopez-Fernandez disclosed receiving speaker fees from Phillips, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Myocardial Solutions, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Beigene, and Bayer not related to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with active cancer and newly diagnosed isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who received 12 months of edoxaban (Savaysa) had fewer thrombotic events at 1 year than those who received 3 months of treatment, without significantly increased bleeding, in the ONCO-DVT trial.

However, lead author Yugo Yamashita, MD, of Kyoto University noted that caution is needed when determining anticoagulation strategies in individual patients with distal DVT, especially those with high risk for bleeding.

Dr. Yamashita presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and the trial was simultaneously published in the journal Circulation.

“This is the first and only randomized trial to show the superiority of longer duration over shorter duration of anticoagulation therapy for reducing thrombotic events in cancer patients with isolated distal DVT,” he said in a press briefing.  

The results provide support for 12 months of edoxaban in patients with active cancer and isolated distal DVD, he said in an email.

However, “considering the risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulation therapy, physicians should make the decision of anticoagulation strategies for these patients based on risk-benefit balance of anticoagulation therapy in individual patients,” he stressed.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, “if you find minor DVT in cancer patients, please be careful, because their thrombotic risk was not low” in this trial, Dr. Yamashita said.  

The study was conducted in Japan, so whether or not the results are generalizable to other populations is not clear. “Subgroup analysis based on body weight did not show any signal of different effect,” he noted, which suggests that the main results could be applied to other populations, including the U.S. population. However, “generalizability of the current results should be carried out carefully.”  
 

Caution needed when translating findings into clinical practice

The assigned discussant, Teresa Lopez-Fernandez, MD, from La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was co-chairperson of 2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology, noted that the optimal anticoagulation therapy strategy is unclear in patients with cancer and isolated distal DVT.

“2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology and [European Society for Medical Oncology] guidelines from this year,” she said, “are both in agreement that we need to prolong anticoagulation [therapy to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE)] when active cancer exists, and particularly in patients with metastatic cancer. The problem is that none of this text refers specifically to distal DVT.”

The ONCO-DVT trial sheds light on this, but there are a few points to consider when interpreting the findings.

Major bleeding was slightly increased in the 12-month vs 3-month edoxaban groups, although this was not statistically significant, she noted. Moreover, 75% of the patients were treated with low-dose edoxaban, mainly due to their low weight. Also, bleeding risk probably differs in different cancer types.

“These are important things that we need to keep in mind when we try to transfer this data to [inform] our clinical practice,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said.

She drew attention to a recent study based on RIETE registry data that suggests that “isolated distal DVT is a big problem for patients with cancer in comparison with noncancer patients, where it seems it’s a low-risk problem.”

The main takeaways from ONCO-DVT, Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, are that it confirms that cancer-associated isolated distal DVT is a marker of poor prognosis, and it supports the need for extended anticoagulation in patients with active, ongoing cancer and isolated distal DVT.

However, “we need to be cautious to try to really understand what the bleeding risks of these patients are,” she said, “particularly because it is not always easy to transfer the results from an Asian population to other populations.”

There is also a need for further studies with other doses, with other novel oral anticoagulants, and in patients at high risk for bleeding, in clinical practice.

Dr. Yamashita said that the study suggests that there is a potential benefit of prolonged duration of anticoagulant therapy for some patients with isolated distal DVT, but not all patients should receive this dosing strategy, because some patients may be at high risk for bleeding or VTE recurrence. A subanalysis of data from ONCO-DVT study should shed further light on this.

“We need to individualize our risk stratification,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, adding that notably, “a lot of patients in the 12-month group did not continue with the 12-month treatment,” which may have affected bleeding results. Dr. Yamashita agreed.
 

Study design and findings

From April 2019 to June 2022, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 604 patients with active cancer who had newly diagnosed isolated distal DVT, confirmed by ultrasonography, and were scheduled for DVT treatment with anticoagulation therapy, at 60 centers.

Active cancer was defined as a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, etc.) within 6 months of randomization, or current recurrence, local invasion, distant metastases, or hematopoietic malignancy without complete remission.

The most common reasons for ultrasonography were elevated D-dimer levels (62%) and suspected DVT because of symptoms (20%).

The patients had a mean age of 70.8 years and 28% were men. The most common cancer sites were ovaries (14%), uterus (13%), lung (11%), colon (9%), and pancreas (8%), followed by stomach, blood, and breast (each 5%).  

The patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 12 months or 3 months of oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily or 30 mg once daily in patients with body weight of 60 kg or less, creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/minute, or concomitant treatment with a potent P-glycoprotein inhibitor.

After excluding 3 patients who withdrew consent, 601 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 296 patients in the 12-month edoxaban group and 305 patients in the 3-month edoxaban group.

About 70% of patients had a body weight of 60 kg or less and about 22% had a creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min. About three quarters received the lower dose of edoxaban.

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 223 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (66 patients had died and 7 were lost to follow-up). In the 3-month edoxaban group, 224 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (77 had died and 4 were lost to follow-up).

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 41% of the patients had discontinued treatment by 12 months. In the 3-month edoxaban group, 41% of patients had discontinued treatment by 3 months.

The primary endpoint – a symptomatic recurrent VTE event or VTE-related death – occurred in 3 of the 222 patients (1.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 210 (8.5%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (odds ratio,0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.44, P < .001). There were no VTE-related deaths.

The major secondary endpoint – major bleeding, according to International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria – occurred in 28 of the 210 patients (10.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 217 (7.6%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.75-2.41, P = NS).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include an open-label design, a lower-than-expected primary endpoint rate, and less than high adherence to edoxaban, as well as the need for caution when generalizing the results to other populations.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Yamashita disclosed receiving lecture fees from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and grant support from Bayer Healthcare and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Lopez-Fernandez disclosed receiving speaker fees from Phillips, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Myocardial Solutions, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Beigene, and Bayer not related to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with active cancer and newly diagnosed isolated distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who received 12 months of edoxaban (Savaysa) had fewer thrombotic events at 1 year than those who received 3 months of treatment, without significantly increased bleeding, in the ONCO-DVT trial.

However, lead author Yugo Yamashita, MD, of Kyoto University noted that caution is needed when determining anticoagulation strategies in individual patients with distal DVT, especially those with high risk for bleeding.

Dr. Yamashita presented the results at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, and the trial was simultaneously published in the journal Circulation.

“This is the first and only randomized trial to show the superiority of longer duration over shorter duration of anticoagulation therapy for reducing thrombotic events in cancer patients with isolated distal DVT,” he said in a press briefing.  

The results provide support for 12 months of edoxaban in patients with active cancer and isolated distal DVD, he said in an email.

However, “considering the risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulation therapy, physicians should make the decision of anticoagulation strategies for these patients based on risk-benefit balance of anticoagulation therapy in individual patients,” he stressed.

The take-home message for clinicians is that, “if you find minor DVT in cancer patients, please be careful, because their thrombotic risk was not low” in this trial, Dr. Yamashita said.  

The study was conducted in Japan, so whether or not the results are generalizable to other populations is not clear. “Subgroup analysis based on body weight did not show any signal of different effect,” he noted, which suggests that the main results could be applied to other populations, including the U.S. population. However, “generalizability of the current results should be carried out carefully.”  
 

Caution needed when translating findings into clinical practice

The assigned discussant, Teresa Lopez-Fernandez, MD, from La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was co-chairperson of 2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology, noted that the optimal anticoagulation therapy strategy is unclear in patients with cancer and isolated distal DVT.

“2022 ESC guidelines on cardio-oncology and [European Society for Medical Oncology] guidelines from this year,” she said, “are both in agreement that we need to prolong anticoagulation [therapy to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE)] when active cancer exists, and particularly in patients with metastatic cancer. The problem is that none of this text refers specifically to distal DVT.”

The ONCO-DVT trial sheds light on this, but there are a few points to consider when interpreting the findings.

Major bleeding was slightly increased in the 12-month vs 3-month edoxaban groups, although this was not statistically significant, she noted. Moreover, 75% of the patients were treated with low-dose edoxaban, mainly due to their low weight. Also, bleeding risk probably differs in different cancer types.

“These are important things that we need to keep in mind when we try to transfer this data to [inform] our clinical practice,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said.

She drew attention to a recent study based on RIETE registry data that suggests that “isolated distal DVT is a big problem for patients with cancer in comparison with noncancer patients, where it seems it’s a low-risk problem.”

The main takeaways from ONCO-DVT, Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, are that it confirms that cancer-associated isolated distal DVT is a marker of poor prognosis, and it supports the need for extended anticoagulation in patients with active, ongoing cancer and isolated distal DVT.

However, “we need to be cautious to try to really understand what the bleeding risks of these patients are,” she said, “particularly because it is not always easy to transfer the results from an Asian population to other populations.”

There is also a need for further studies with other doses, with other novel oral anticoagulants, and in patients at high risk for bleeding, in clinical practice.

Dr. Yamashita said that the study suggests that there is a potential benefit of prolonged duration of anticoagulant therapy for some patients with isolated distal DVT, but not all patients should receive this dosing strategy, because some patients may be at high risk for bleeding or VTE recurrence. A subanalysis of data from ONCO-DVT study should shed further light on this.

“We need to individualize our risk stratification,” Dr. Lopez-Fernandez said, adding that notably, “a lot of patients in the 12-month group did not continue with the 12-month treatment,” which may have affected bleeding results. Dr. Yamashita agreed.
 

Study design and findings

From April 2019 to June 2022, the researchers enrolled and randomly assigned 604 patients with active cancer who had newly diagnosed isolated distal DVT, confirmed by ultrasonography, and were scheduled for DVT treatment with anticoagulation therapy, at 60 centers.

Active cancer was defined as a cancer diagnosis or cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, etc.) within 6 months of randomization, or current recurrence, local invasion, distant metastases, or hematopoietic malignancy without complete remission.

The most common reasons for ultrasonography were elevated D-dimer levels (62%) and suspected DVT because of symptoms (20%).

The patients had a mean age of 70.8 years and 28% were men. The most common cancer sites were ovaries (14%), uterus (13%), lung (11%), colon (9%), and pancreas (8%), followed by stomach, blood, and breast (each 5%).  

The patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 12 months or 3 months of oral edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily or 30 mg once daily in patients with body weight of 60 kg or less, creatinine clearance of 30-50 mL/minute, or concomitant treatment with a potent P-glycoprotein inhibitor.

After excluding 3 patients who withdrew consent, 601 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 296 patients in the 12-month edoxaban group and 305 patients in the 3-month edoxaban group.

About 70% of patients had a body weight of 60 kg or less and about 22% had a creatinine clearance less than 50 mL/min. About three quarters received the lower dose of edoxaban.

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 223 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (66 patients had died and 7 were lost to follow-up). In the 3-month edoxaban group, 224 patients completed the 1-year follow-up (77 had died and 4 were lost to follow-up).

In the 12-month edoxaban group, 41% of the patients had discontinued treatment by 12 months. In the 3-month edoxaban group, 41% of patients had discontinued treatment by 3 months.

The primary endpoint – a symptomatic recurrent VTE event or VTE-related death – occurred in 3 of the 222 patients (1.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 210 (8.5%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (odds ratio,0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.44, P < .001). There were no VTE-related deaths.

The major secondary endpoint – major bleeding, according to International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis criteria – occurred in 28 of the 210 patients (10.2%) in the 12-month edoxaban group and in 22 of the 217 (7.6%) in the 3-month edoxaban group (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.75-2.41, P = NS).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include an open-label design, a lower-than-expected primary endpoint rate, and less than high adherence to edoxaban, as well as the need for caution when generalizing the results to other populations.

The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Yamashita disclosed receiving lecture fees from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo, and grant support from Bayer Healthcare and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Lopez-Fernandez disclosed receiving speaker fees from Phillips, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, Myocardial Solutions, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Beigene, and Bayer not related to this study.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PET scans may serve as both a diagnostic and prognostic tool in giant cell arteritis (GCA), according to a new study.

In over 100 patients with GCA who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging, those with elevated FDG uptake at diagnosis were more likely to develop thoracic aortic aneurysms.

“PET-CT has an excellent diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of GCA, certainly if both extracranial and intracranial vessels were assessed. This study shows that performing PET imaging at diagnosis in patients with GCA may also help estimate the future risk for aortic aneurysm formation,” lead author Lien Moreel, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), wrote in an email. “PET imaging at diagnosis can provide both diagnostic and prognostic information in one imaging tool in patients with GCA.”

Brudersohn/CC BY-SA 3.0/Wikimedia Commons

Previous retrospective studies have found an association between FDG uptake at diagnosis and risk for aortic complications, but “prospective studies confirming these findings are lacking,” the investigators wrote. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the study, Dr. Moreel and colleagues prospectively followed 106 individuals diagnosed with GCA who received FDG-PET within 3 days after starting glucocorticoids. Patients also had CT imaging at diagnosis and then CT imaging annually for up to 10 years. 

A PET scan was considered positive with an FDG uptake of grade 2 or higher in any of seven vascular regions (thoracic and abdominal aorta, subclavian, axillary, carotid, iliac, and femoral arteries). Researchers also used the results to quantify a total vascular score (TVS). Out of the entire cohort, 75 patients had a positive PET scan result.

These patients had a larger increase in the diameter of the ascending aorta and the descending aorta, as well the volume of thoracic aorta after 5 years, compared with those who had a negative PET scan result. These changes were also associated with higher TVS at diagnosis. Of the 23 patients who developed an aortic aneurysm, 18 had a positive PET scan at diagnosis.

The risk of incident thoracic aortic aneurysms was calculated to be 10 times higher in patients with positive PET scans. Fourteen of the 15 patients (93%) with an incident thoracic aortic aneurysm had positive PET results.

Up to now, “we’ve had no way of predicting which patients might be at risk of this potentially serious complication,” Kenneth Warrington, MD, chair of the department of rheumatology and director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

He hopes that the findings will help inform clinicians on how patients with GCA should be evaluated and monitored. Although the American College of Rheumatology conditionally recommends noninvasive imaging in patients newly diagnosed with GCA, guidance for follow-up on these patients is less clear.

“There are no clear guidelines, but most clinicians who take care of patients with GCA do obtain imaging periodically,” he said. “There is a lot of variability in the practice in terms of which type of scan is used and how often it’s done.”

Although this study did not specifically look at the benefit of screening patients, “we think that follow-up of aortic dimensions seems to be warranted in GCA patients with a positive PET scan result, especially in those with high intensity and broad extent of vascular inflammation,” Dr. Moreel said. “However, the added value of screening and the interval required should be addressed in future studies.”

Applying this study’s protocol in practice in the United States might be difficult, Dr. Warrington noted, as it can be challenging logistically to get imaging done within 3 days of starting steroids. However, Dr. Moreel said it is possible to delay the start of glucocorticoids until the PET scan is performed in patients without visual symptoms or jaw claudication.

PET scans are also expensive, and it can be difficult to get insurance coverage in the United States. However, other imaging modalities could potentially be used in similar ways, Dr. Warrington said. “One could potentially extrapolate to say that if there is difficulty with accessing PET scan, we could use other modalities like CT or MRI basically to see whether the aorta is inflamed or not.”

Dr. Moreel disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Warrington has received compensation for consulting activities with Sanofi. Eli Lilly, Kiniksa, and Bristol-Myers Squibb have provided support to the Mayo Clinic for clinical trials related to GCA, of which Dr. Warrington served as subinvestigator.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PET scans may serve as both a diagnostic and prognostic tool in giant cell arteritis (GCA), according to a new study.

In over 100 patients with GCA who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging, those with elevated FDG uptake at diagnosis were more likely to develop thoracic aortic aneurysms.

“PET-CT has an excellent diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of GCA, certainly if both extracranial and intracranial vessels were assessed. This study shows that performing PET imaging at diagnosis in patients with GCA may also help estimate the future risk for aortic aneurysm formation,” lead author Lien Moreel, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), wrote in an email. “PET imaging at diagnosis can provide both diagnostic and prognostic information in one imaging tool in patients with GCA.”

Brudersohn/CC BY-SA 3.0/Wikimedia Commons

Previous retrospective studies have found an association between FDG uptake at diagnosis and risk for aortic complications, but “prospective studies confirming these findings are lacking,” the investigators wrote. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the study, Dr. Moreel and colleagues prospectively followed 106 individuals diagnosed with GCA who received FDG-PET within 3 days after starting glucocorticoids. Patients also had CT imaging at diagnosis and then CT imaging annually for up to 10 years. 

A PET scan was considered positive with an FDG uptake of grade 2 or higher in any of seven vascular regions (thoracic and abdominal aorta, subclavian, axillary, carotid, iliac, and femoral arteries). Researchers also used the results to quantify a total vascular score (TVS). Out of the entire cohort, 75 patients had a positive PET scan result.

These patients had a larger increase in the diameter of the ascending aorta and the descending aorta, as well the volume of thoracic aorta after 5 years, compared with those who had a negative PET scan result. These changes were also associated with higher TVS at diagnosis. Of the 23 patients who developed an aortic aneurysm, 18 had a positive PET scan at diagnosis.

The risk of incident thoracic aortic aneurysms was calculated to be 10 times higher in patients with positive PET scans. Fourteen of the 15 patients (93%) with an incident thoracic aortic aneurysm had positive PET results.

Up to now, “we’ve had no way of predicting which patients might be at risk of this potentially serious complication,” Kenneth Warrington, MD, chair of the department of rheumatology and director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

He hopes that the findings will help inform clinicians on how patients with GCA should be evaluated and monitored. Although the American College of Rheumatology conditionally recommends noninvasive imaging in patients newly diagnosed with GCA, guidance for follow-up on these patients is less clear.

“There are no clear guidelines, but most clinicians who take care of patients with GCA do obtain imaging periodically,” he said. “There is a lot of variability in the practice in terms of which type of scan is used and how often it’s done.”

Although this study did not specifically look at the benefit of screening patients, “we think that follow-up of aortic dimensions seems to be warranted in GCA patients with a positive PET scan result, especially in those with high intensity and broad extent of vascular inflammation,” Dr. Moreel said. “However, the added value of screening and the interval required should be addressed in future studies.”

Applying this study’s protocol in practice in the United States might be difficult, Dr. Warrington noted, as it can be challenging logistically to get imaging done within 3 days of starting steroids. However, Dr. Moreel said it is possible to delay the start of glucocorticoids until the PET scan is performed in patients without visual symptoms or jaw claudication.

PET scans are also expensive, and it can be difficult to get insurance coverage in the United States. However, other imaging modalities could potentially be used in similar ways, Dr. Warrington said. “One could potentially extrapolate to say that if there is difficulty with accessing PET scan, we could use other modalities like CT or MRI basically to see whether the aorta is inflamed or not.”

Dr. Moreel disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Warrington has received compensation for consulting activities with Sanofi. Eli Lilly, Kiniksa, and Bristol-Myers Squibb have provided support to the Mayo Clinic for clinical trials related to GCA, of which Dr. Warrington served as subinvestigator.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PET scans may serve as both a diagnostic and prognostic tool in giant cell arteritis (GCA), according to a new study.

In over 100 patients with GCA who underwent 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging, those with elevated FDG uptake at diagnosis were more likely to develop thoracic aortic aneurysms.

“PET-CT has an excellent diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of GCA, certainly if both extracranial and intracranial vessels were assessed. This study shows that performing PET imaging at diagnosis in patients with GCA may also help estimate the future risk for aortic aneurysm formation,” lead author Lien Moreel, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), wrote in an email. “PET imaging at diagnosis can provide both diagnostic and prognostic information in one imaging tool in patients with GCA.”

Brudersohn/CC BY-SA 3.0/Wikimedia Commons

Previous retrospective studies have found an association between FDG uptake at diagnosis and risk for aortic complications, but “prospective studies confirming these findings are lacking,” the investigators wrote. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

In the study, Dr. Moreel and colleagues prospectively followed 106 individuals diagnosed with GCA who received FDG-PET within 3 days after starting glucocorticoids. Patients also had CT imaging at diagnosis and then CT imaging annually for up to 10 years. 

A PET scan was considered positive with an FDG uptake of grade 2 or higher in any of seven vascular regions (thoracic and abdominal aorta, subclavian, axillary, carotid, iliac, and femoral arteries). Researchers also used the results to quantify a total vascular score (TVS). Out of the entire cohort, 75 patients had a positive PET scan result.

These patients had a larger increase in the diameter of the ascending aorta and the descending aorta, as well the volume of thoracic aorta after 5 years, compared with those who had a negative PET scan result. These changes were also associated with higher TVS at diagnosis. Of the 23 patients who developed an aortic aneurysm, 18 had a positive PET scan at diagnosis.

The risk of incident thoracic aortic aneurysms was calculated to be 10 times higher in patients with positive PET scans. Fourteen of the 15 patients (93%) with an incident thoracic aortic aneurysm had positive PET results.

Up to now, “we’ve had no way of predicting which patients might be at risk of this potentially serious complication,” Kenneth Warrington, MD, chair of the department of rheumatology and director of the Vasculitis Clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. He was not involved with the research.

He hopes that the findings will help inform clinicians on how patients with GCA should be evaluated and monitored. Although the American College of Rheumatology conditionally recommends noninvasive imaging in patients newly diagnosed with GCA, guidance for follow-up on these patients is less clear.

“There are no clear guidelines, but most clinicians who take care of patients with GCA do obtain imaging periodically,” he said. “There is a lot of variability in the practice in terms of which type of scan is used and how often it’s done.”

Although this study did not specifically look at the benefit of screening patients, “we think that follow-up of aortic dimensions seems to be warranted in GCA patients with a positive PET scan result, especially in those with high intensity and broad extent of vascular inflammation,” Dr. Moreel said. “However, the added value of screening and the interval required should be addressed in future studies.”

Applying this study’s protocol in practice in the United States might be difficult, Dr. Warrington noted, as it can be challenging logistically to get imaging done within 3 days of starting steroids. However, Dr. Moreel said it is possible to delay the start of glucocorticoids until the PET scan is performed in patients without visual symptoms or jaw claudication.

PET scans are also expensive, and it can be difficult to get insurance coverage in the United States. However, other imaging modalities could potentially be used in similar ways, Dr. Warrington said. “One could potentially extrapolate to say that if there is difficulty with accessing PET scan, we could use other modalities like CT or MRI basically to see whether the aorta is inflamed or not.”

Dr. Moreel disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Warrington has received compensation for consulting activities with Sanofi. Eli Lilly, Kiniksa, and Bristol-Myers Squibb have provided support to the Mayo Clinic for clinical trials related to GCA, of which Dr. Warrington served as subinvestigator.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

She went by the name “Dr. Roxy” on social media and became something of a sensation on TikTok, where she livestreamed her patients’ operations. Ultimately, however, plastic surgeon Katharine Roxanne Grawe, MD, lost her medical license based partly on her “life-altering, reckless treatment,” heightened by her social media fame. In July, the Ohio state medical board permanently revoked Dr. Grawe’s license after twice reprimanding her for her failure to meet the standard of care. The board also determined that, by livestreaming procedures, she placed her patients in danger of immediate and serious harm.

Although most doctors don’t use social media to the degree that Dr. Grawe did, using the various platforms – from X (formerly Twitter) to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – can be a slippery slope. Medscape’s Physician Behavior Report 2023 revealed that doctors have seen their share of unprofessional or offensive social media use from their peers. Nearly 7 in 10 said it is unethical for a doctor to act rudely, offensively, or unprofessionally on social media, even if their medical practice isn’t mentioned. As one physician put it: “Professional is not a 9-to-5 descriptor.”

In today’s world, social media use is almost a given. Doctors must tread cautiously when they approach it – maybe even more so. “There’s still a stigma attached,” said Liudmila Schafer, MD, an oncologist with The Doctor Connect, a career consulting firm. “Physicians face a tougher challenge due to societal expectations of perfection, with greater consequences for mistakes. We’re under constant ‘observation’ from peers, employers, and patients.”

Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Jay Calvert, MD, says he holds firm boundaries with how he uses social media. “I do comedy on the side, but it’s not acceptable for me as a doctor to share that on social media,” he said. “People want doctors who are professional, and I’m always concerned about how I present myself.”

Dr. Calvert said it is fairly easy to spot doctors who cross the line with social media. “You have to hold yourself back when posting. Doing things like dancing in the OR are out of whack with the profession.”

According to Dr. Schafer, a definite line to avoid crossing is offering medical advice or guidance on social media. “You also can’t discuss confidential practice details, respond to unfamiliar contacts, or discuss institutional policies without permission,” she said. “It’s important to add disclaimers if a personal scientific opinion is shared without reference [or] research or with unchecked sources.”
 

Navigating the many social media sites

Each social media platform has its pros and cons. Doctors need to determine why to use them and what the payback of each might be. Dr. Schafer uses multiple sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, Threads, YouTube, and, to a lesser degree, Clubhouse. How and what she posts on each varies. “I use them almost 95% professionally,” she said. “It’s challenging to meet and engage in person, so that is where social media helps.”

Stephen Pribut, MD, a Washington-based podiatrist, likes to use X as an information source. He follows pretty simple rules when it comes to what he tweets and shares on various sites: “I stay away from politics and religion,” he said. “I also avoid controversial topics online, such as vaccines.”

Joseph Daibes, DO, who specializes in cardiovascular medicine at New Jersey Heart and Vein, Clifton, said he has changed how he uses social media. “Initially, I was a passive consumer, but as I recognized the importance of accurate medical information online, I became more active in weighing in responsibly, occasionally sharing studies, debunking myths, and engaging in meaningful conversations,” he said. “Social media can get dangerous, so we have a duty to use it responsibly, and I cannot stress that enough.”

For plastic surgeons like Dr. Calvert, the visual platforms such as Instagram can prove invaluable for marketing purposes. “I’ve been using Instagram since 2012, and it’s been my most positive experience,” he said. “I don’t generate business from it, but I use it to back up my qualifications as a surgeon.”

Potential patients like to scroll through posts by plastic surgeons to learn what their finished product looks like, Dr. Calvert said. In many cases, plastic surgeons hire social media experts to cultivate their content. “I’ve hired and fired social media managers over the years, ultimately deciding I should develop my own content,” he said. “I want people to see the same doctor on social media that they will see in the office. I like an authentic presentation, not glitzy.”
 

Social media gone wrong

Dr. Calvert said that in the world of plastic surgery, some doctors use social media to present “before and after” compilations that in his opinion aren’t necessarily fully authentic, and this rubs him wrong. “There’s a bit of ‘cheating’ in some of these posts, using filters, making the ‘befores’ particularly bad, and other tricks,” he said.

Dr. Daibes has also seen his share of social media misuse: ”Red flags include oversharing personal indulgences, engaging in online spats, or making unfounded medical claims,” he said. “It’s essential to remember our role as educators and advocates, and to present ourselves in a way that upholds the dignity of our profession.”

At the end of the day, social media can have positive uses for physicians, and it is clearly here to stay. The onus for responsible use ultimately falls to the physicians using it.

Dr. Daibes emphasizes the fact that a doctor’s words carry weight – perhaps more so than those of other professionals. “The added scrutiny is good because it keeps us accountable; it’s crucial that our information is accurate,” he said. “The downside is that the scrutiny can be stifling at times and lead to self-censorship, even on nonmedical matters.”

Physicians have suggested eight guidelines for doctors to follow when using social media:

• Remember that you represent your profession, even if posting on personal accounts.
• Never post from the operating room, the emergency department, or any sort of medical space.
• If you’re employed, before you post, check with your employer to see whether they have any rules or guidance surrounding social media.
• Never use social media to badmouth colleagues, hospitals, or other healthcare organizations.
• Never use social media to dispense medical advice.
• Steer clear of the obvious hot-button issues, like religion and politics.
• Always protect patient privacy when posting.
• Be careful with how and whom you engage on social media.

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

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association has released a focused update on managing patients with cardiac arrest or life-threatening toxicity due to poisoning.

The update reflects treatment advances and new knowledge, including the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for patients whose condition is refractory to poison antidotes and other therapies.

The new guidelines are designed primarily for North American health care professionals who treat adults and children who are critically ill because of poisoning, including intentional and unintentional drug overdose, chemical exposure, and drug-drug interactions, the authors note.

Published online in Circulation, the update was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
 

‘Nearly miraculous’

“It’s been 13 years since the poisoning treatment guidelines had a comprehensive update,” lead author Eric J. Lavonas, MD, professor of emergency medicine at Denver Health and the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Colo., told this news organization. “In that time, we’ve learned a lot about how to best use antidotes and other treatments to save the most critically poisoned patients.”

Highlighting a few key points from the update, he said, “For those rare situations when antidotes aren’t enough, the new guidelines include the use of heart-lung machines (VA-ECMO) for patients with beta-blocker, calcium channel blocker, or sodium channel blocker poisoning causing cardiogenic shock.”

Furthermore, he said, “High-dose insulin treatment for patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning [also recommended in the update] has really become mainstream. The doses are up to 10 times higher than the amount used to treat diabetic emergencies.

“Some excellent science has shown that giving IV lipid emulsion can save the life of someone with an accidental overdose of local anesthetic medications, particularly bupivacaine,” he added. “The result is sometimes nearly miraculous.

“But when this treatment is extended to poisoning from other medications, it often doesn’t work as well, and in some situations may make things worse,” he said. “The issue may be that giving lipids increases absorption of drug from the stomach and intestines, which can be dangerous when the patient took an overdose of pills.”
 

Low level of evidence

The guidelines were compiled by the Critical Poisoning Writing Group, which includes experts from emergency medicine, pediatrics, medical toxicology, pharmacology, critical care, emergency medical services, education, research, and nursing. Group members were appointed by the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science Subcommittee and were approved by the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee.

First and foremost, the group recommends timely consultation with a medical toxicologist, a clinical toxicologist, or a regional poison center to facilitate rapid, effective therapy, because treatment of cardiac arrest and toxicity from poisoning often requires treatments that most clinicians don’t use frequently.

Other key points include the following:

• Naloxone administration may reverse respiratory arrest due to opioid overdose, preventing progression to cardiac arrest.
• Give high-dose insulin therapy early in the treatment of patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning, Dr. Lavonas noted.
• Standard advanced life support plus sodium bicarbonate is appropriate for life-threatening dysrhythmias caused by cocaine or other sodium channel blockers.
• If cyanide poisoning is suspected, clinicians should not wait for confirmatory testing; treatment should begin immediately with hydroxocobalamin (preferred) or sodium nitrite plus sodium thiosulfate.
• Digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments can reverse life-threatening dysrhythmias from digoxin poisoning.
• Use of 20% intravenous lipid emulsion can be efficacious in the resuscitation of life-threatening local anesthetic toxicity, especially from bupivacaine, Dr. Lavonas indicated.
• Sedation is recommended for patients with severe agitation from sympathomimetic poisoning to manage hyperthermia and acidosis, prevent rhabdomyolysis and injury, and allow evaluation for other life-threatening conditions.
• Although flumazenil reverses central nervous system and respiratory depression from benzodiazepine poisoning, risks and contraindications, provided in the guidelines, limit its use.
• VA-ECMO can be lifesaving for patients with cardiogenic shock or dysrhythmias that are refractory to other treatments.

“Unfortunately, despite improvements in the design and funding support for resuscitation research, the overall certainty of the evidence base for resuscitation science and management of critical poisoning is low,” the group acknowledges.

Of the 73 guideline recommendations, only 2 are supported by level A evidence; 3 are supported by level B-randomized evidence, 12 by level B-nonrandomized evidence, and the rest by level C evidence.

“Accordingly, the strength of recommendations is weaker than optimal,” they write. “Clinical trials in resuscitation and the management of critical poisoning are sorely needed.”
 

‘Don’t go it alone!’

“Most critical poisonings are pretty uncommon, and each patient is different,” Dr. Lavonas said. “Even in the emergency department or ICU, most physicians will treat a patient who is critically ill with any given poison less than once a year. The antidotes and medication doses needed to effectively treat these patients are often very different than everyday medical practice.

“Don’t try to go it alone!” he urges. “Poisoning cases are complex, and the treatments work best when they are implemented quickly and assertively. A toxicologist can help sort through complex situations and get effective treatment started without delay.”

Every certified poison center has a medical toxicologist or clinical toxicologist on call 24/7 to give advice to physicians and hospitals about patients who are critically ill after being poisoned, he added. “Everyone in the U.S. has access to a poison center by calling one number: 1-800-222-1222.”

Dr. Lavonas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association has released a focused update on managing patients with cardiac arrest or life-threatening toxicity due to poisoning.

The update reflects treatment advances and new knowledge, including the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for patients whose condition is refractory to poison antidotes and other therapies.

The new guidelines are designed primarily for North American health care professionals who treat adults and children who are critically ill because of poisoning, including intentional and unintentional drug overdose, chemical exposure, and drug-drug interactions, the authors note.

Published online in Circulation, the update was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
 

‘Nearly miraculous’

“It’s been 13 years since the poisoning treatment guidelines had a comprehensive update,” lead author Eric J. Lavonas, MD, professor of emergency medicine at Denver Health and the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Colo., told this news organization. “In that time, we’ve learned a lot about how to best use antidotes and other treatments to save the most critically poisoned patients.”

Highlighting a few key points from the update, he said, “For those rare situations when antidotes aren’t enough, the new guidelines include the use of heart-lung machines (VA-ECMO) for patients with beta-blocker, calcium channel blocker, or sodium channel blocker poisoning causing cardiogenic shock.”

Furthermore, he said, “High-dose insulin treatment for patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning [also recommended in the update] has really become mainstream. The doses are up to 10 times higher than the amount used to treat diabetic emergencies.

“Some excellent science has shown that giving IV lipid emulsion can save the life of someone with an accidental overdose of local anesthetic medications, particularly bupivacaine,” he added. “The result is sometimes nearly miraculous.

“But when this treatment is extended to poisoning from other medications, it often doesn’t work as well, and in some situations may make things worse,” he said. “The issue may be that giving lipids increases absorption of drug from the stomach and intestines, which can be dangerous when the patient took an overdose of pills.”
 

Low level of evidence

The guidelines were compiled by the Critical Poisoning Writing Group, which includes experts from emergency medicine, pediatrics, medical toxicology, pharmacology, critical care, emergency medical services, education, research, and nursing. Group members were appointed by the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science Subcommittee and were approved by the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee.

First and foremost, the group recommends timely consultation with a medical toxicologist, a clinical toxicologist, or a regional poison center to facilitate rapid, effective therapy, because treatment of cardiac arrest and toxicity from poisoning often requires treatments that most clinicians don’t use frequently.

Other key points include the following:

• Naloxone administration may reverse respiratory arrest due to opioid overdose, preventing progression to cardiac arrest.
• Give high-dose insulin therapy early in the treatment of patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning, Dr. Lavonas noted.
• Standard advanced life support plus sodium bicarbonate is appropriate for life-threatening dysrhythmias caused by cocaine or other sodium channel blockers.
• If cyanide poisoning is suspected, clinicians should not wait for confirmatory testing; treatment should begin immediately with hydroxocobalamin (preferred) or sodium nitrite plus sodium thiosulfate.
• Digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments can reverse life-threatening dysrhythmias from digoxin poisoning.
• Use of 20% intravenous lipid emulsion can be efficacious in the resuscitation of life-threatening local anesthetic toxicity, especially from bupivacaine, Dr. Lavonas indicated.
• Sedation is recommended for patients with severe agitation from sympathomimetic poisoning to manage hyperthermia and acidosis, prevent rhabdomyolysis and injury, and allow evaluation for other life-threatening conditions.
• Although flumazenil reverses central nervous system and respiratory depression from benzodiazepine poisoning, risks and contraindications, provided in the guidelines, limit its use.
• VA-ECMO can be lifesaving for patients with cardiogenic shock or dysrhythmias that are refractory to other treatments.

“Unfortunately, despite improvements in the design and funding support for resuscitation research, the overall certainty of the evidence base for resuscitation science and management of critical poisoning is low,” the group acknowledges.

Of the 73 guideline recommendations, only 2 are supported by level A evidence; 3 are supported by level B-randomized evidence, 12 by level B-nonrandomized evidence, and the rest by level C evidence.

“Accordingly, the strength of recommendations is weaker than optimal,” they write. “Clinical trials in resuscitation and the management of critical poisoning are sorely needed.”
 

‘Don’t go it alone!’

“Most critical poisonings are pretty uncommon, and each patient is different,” Dr. Lavonas said. “Even in the emergency department or ICU, most physicians will treat a patient who is critically ill with any given poison less than once a year. The antidotes and medication doses needed to effectively treat these patients are often very different than everyday medical practice.

“Don’t try to go it alone!” he urges. “Poisoning cases are complex, and the treatments work best when they are implemented quickly and assertively. A toxicologist can help sort through complex situations and get effective treatment started without delay.”

Every certified poison center has a medical toxicologist or clinical toxicologist on call 24/7 to give advice to physicians and hospitals about patients who are critically ill after being poisoned, he added. “Everyone in the U.S. has access to a poison center by calling one number: 1-800-222-1222.”

Dr. Lavonas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association has released a focused update on managing patients with cardiac arrest or life-threatening toxicity due to poisoning.

The update reflects treatment advances and new knowledge, including the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for patients whose condition is refractory to poison antidotes and other therapies.

The new guidelines are designed primarily for North American health care professionals who treat adults and children who are critically ill because of poisoning, including intentional and unintentional drug overdose, chemical exposure, and drug-drug interactions, the authors note.

Published online in Circulation, the update was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
 

‘Nearly miraculous’

“It’s been 13 years since the poisoning treatment guidelines had a comprehensive update,” lead author Eric J. Lavonas, MD, professor of emergency medicine at Denver Health and the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Colo., told this news organization. “In that time, we’ve learned a lot about how to best use antidotes and other treatments to save the most critically poisoned patients.”

Highlighting a few key points from the update, he said, “For those rare situations when antidotes aren’t enough, the new guidelines include the use of heart-lung machines (VA-ECMO) for patients with beta-blocker, calcium channel blocker, or sodium channel blocker poisoning causing cardiogenic shock.”

Furthermore, he said, “High-dose insulin treatment for patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning [also recommended in the update] has really become mainstream. The doses are up to 10 times higher than the amount used to treat diabetic emergencies.

“Some excellent science has shown that giving IV lipid emulsion can save the life of someone with an accidental overdose of local anesthetic medications, particularly bupivacaine,” he added. “The result is sometimes nearly miraculous.

“But when this treatment is extended to poisoning from other medications, it often doesn’t work as well, and in some situations may make things worse,” he said. “The issue may be that giving lipids increases absorption of drug from the stomach and intestines, which can be dangerous when the patient took an overdose of pills.”
 

Low level of evidence

The guidelines were compiled by the Critical Poisoning Writing Group, which includes experts from emergency medicine, pediatrics, medical toxicology, pharmacology, critical care, emergency medical services, education, research, and nursing. Group members were appointed by the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science Subcommittee and were approved by the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee.

First and foremost, the group recommends timely consultation with a medical toxicologist, a clinical toxicologist, or a regional poison center to facilitate rapid, effective therapy, because treatment of cardiac arrest and toxicity from poisoning often requires treatments that most clinicians don’t use frequently.

Other key points include the following:

• Naloxone administration may reverse respiratory arrest due to opioid overdose, preventing progression to cardiac arrest.
• Give high-dose insulin therapy early in the treatment of patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning, Dr. Lavonas noted.
• Standard advanced life support plus sodium bicarbonate is appropriate for life-threatening dysrhythmias caused by cocaine or other sodium channel blockers.
• If cyanide poisoning is suspected, clinicians should not wait for confirmatory testing; treatment should begin immediately with hydroxocobalamin (preferred) or sodium nitrite plus sodium thiosulfate.
• Digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments can reverse life-threatening dysrhythmias from digoxin poisoning.
• Use of 20% intravenous lipid emulsion can be efficacious in the resuscitation of life-threatening local anesthetic toxicity, especially from bupivacaine, Dr. Lavonas indicated.
• Sedation is recommended for patients with severe agitation from sympathomimetic poisoning to manage hyperthermia and acidosis, prevent rhabdomyolysis and injury, and allow evaluation for other life-threatening conditions.
• Although flumazenil reverses central nervous system and respiratory depression from benzodiazepine poisoning, risks and contraindications, provided in the guidelines, limit its use.
• VA-ECMO can be lifesaving for patients with cardiogenic shock or dysrhythmias that are refractory to other treatments.

“Unfortunately, despite improvements in the design and funding support for resuscitation research, the overall certainty of the evidence base for resuscitation science and management of critical poisoning is low,” the group acknowledges.

Of the 73 guideline recommendations, only 2 are supported by level A evidence; 3 are supported by level B-randomized evidence, 12 by level B-nonrandomized evidence, and the rest by level C evidence.

“Accordingly, the strength of recommendations is weaker than optimal,” they write. “Clinical trials in resuscitation and the management of critical poisoning are sorely needed.”
 

‘Don’t go it alone!’

“Most critical poisonings are pretty uncommon, and each patient is different,” Dr. Lavonas said. “Even in the emergency department or ICU, most physicians will treat a patient who is critically ill with any given poison less than once a year. The antidotes and medication doses needed to effectively treat these patients are often very different than everyday medical practice.

“Don’t try to go it alone!” he urges. “Poisoning cases are complex, and the treatments work best when they are implemented quickly and assertively. A toxicologist can help sort through complex situations and get effective treatment started without delay.”

Every certified poison center has a medical toxicologist or clinical toxicologist on call 24/7 to give advice to physicians and hospitals about patients who are critically ill after being poisoned, he added. “Everyone in the U.S. has access to a poison center by calling one number: 1-800-222-1222.”

Dr. Lavonas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study finds SARS-CoV-2 directly infects the coronary vasculature and causes plaque inflammation, which could help explain why people with COVID-19 have an increased risk for ischemic cardiovascular complications up to 1 year after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers obtained 27 coronary autopsy specimens from eight patients who died from COVID-19, mean age 70 years and 75% male. All had coronary artery disease and most had cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, were overweight or obese, and had hyperlipidemia and type 2 diabetes.
• All but one patient, who was pronounced dead before hospital admission, were hospitalized for an average of 17.6 days.
• To identify SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA (vRNA) in the autoptic coronary vasculature, researchers performed RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (RNA-FISH) analysis for the vRNA encoding the spike (S) protein; they also probed the antisense strand of the S gene (S antisense), which is only produced during viral replication.

TAKEAWAY:

• The study found evidence of SARS-CoV-2 replication in all analyzed human autopsy coronaries regardless of their pathological classification, although viral replication was highest in early-stage lesions that progress to more advanced atherosclerotic plaques.
• Findings indicated that more than 79% of macrophages (white blood cells that help remove lipids) and more than 90% of foam cells (lipid-laden macrophages that are a hallmark of atherosclerosis at all stages of the disease) are S+, and more than 40% of both cell types are S antisense+, indicating SARS-CoV-2 can infect macrophages at a high rate.
• SARS-CoV-2 induced a strong inflammatory response as evidenced by release of cytokines (including interleukin-1 beta and interluekin-6 that are linked to myocardial infarction) in both macrophages and foam cells, which may contribute to the ischemic cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our data conclusively demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 is capable of infecting and replicating in macrophages within the coronary vasculature of patients with COVID-19,” write the authors, adding that SARS-CoV-2 preferentially replicates in foam cells, compared with other macrophages, suggesting these cells “might act as a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 viral debris in the atherosclerotic plaque.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Natalia Eberhardt, PhD, postdoctoral fellow, department of medicine, division of cardiology, New York University, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Cardiovascular Research.

LIMITATIONS:

Findings are relevant only to the original strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated in New York between May 2020 and May 2021, and are not generalizable to patients younger and healthier than those from whom samples were obtained for the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.