You’ve successfully resected a skin cancer lesion, leaving clear margins. Now what?

That’s the question the authors of an evidence-based guideline on reconstruction after skin cancer resection set out to answer.

The guideline – a joint effort of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Mohs Surgery, and American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

From the outset, the panel members realized that to keep the guideline manageable they had to limit recommendations to the practice of reconstruction defined as “cutaneous closure that requires a flap, graft, or tissue rearrangement.”

Other wound closure methods, such as secondary intention healing; simple closures; and complex closures that do not involve flaps, grafts, muscle, or bone, were not covered in the recommendations.

As with similar guidelines, the developers selected seven clinical questions to be addressed, and attempted to find consensus through literature searches, appraisal of the evidence, grading of recommendations, peer review, and public comment.

“We had a very heterogeneous set of things that we were trying to comment on, so we had to keep things somewhat generic,” lead author Andrew Chen, MD, chief of the division of plastic surgery, at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, said in an interview.

“Skin cancer and reconstruction affect different body areas and areas of different sizes. When we were creating the guidelines, we had to tailor the questions we could ask based on things that would make sense to answer, because obviously we couldn’t ask a question such as: ‘What’s better, a skin graft or a flap?’ Well, there are some things you can’t put a skin graft on – it won’t last, so we couldn’t ask that kind of question,” Dr. Chen said.

Curtis Cetrulo, MD, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the guideline process, said in an interview that the broad recommendations are in keeping with his practice and experience. He also acknowledged, however, the difficulty in creating a guideline that covers the complexity and heterogeneity of reconstructive surgery.

“These are generally good recommendations, but they’re recommendations only, with generally weak levels of evidence. What we really need are clinical trials that can give us definitive answers to some of these questions,” he said.

Recommendations
 

The seven key recommendations, based on the clinical questions raised, are summarized below:

• Delayed (asynchronous) reconstruction is acceptable. Although the quality of the evidence is low and the recommendations are listed as an option, the guideline authors said that depending on the situation, reconstruction can be performed either immediately after resection or delayed by days, weeks, “or even months.”
• Systemic antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in the interim between resection and reconstruction in adults. Here too, the evidence is low and the recommendation strength is weak, but in “the absence of data showing convincing benefits, systemic antibiotic therapy does not appear necessary or desirable in most cases when there is an interval between cancer resection and reconstruction,” the work group wrote.
• Clinicians may administer perioperative systemic antibiotics in a facility-based setting for adults undergoing reconstruction (3a), but antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in an office-based setting (3b). The rationale for these recommendations, supported by a moderate level of evidence, is that the risk of surgical-site infection is generally higher in facilities, compared with an office-based setting. Patients who undergo reconstruction in hospitals or surgical centers are more likely to have complex reconstructions or have risks that may make them suitable candidates for antibiotics, but patients in office-based setting may often be spared from the additional costs, side effects, and possible drug interactions from antibiotic use. “There is no evidence in either setting that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis provides infection risk reduction, compared with short-term prophylaxis,” the guideline working group wrote.
• Continue anticoagulant, antithrombotic, and antiplatelet medications for adult patients undergoing reconstruction after skin cancer resection in the office-based setting (4a), and in the facility-based setting should coordinate with the physician managing anticoagulation before modifying the medication prior to surgery (4b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• The guideline authors recommend against routine prescription of narcotics as first-line treatment for pain in adults undergoing skin reconstruction (5a), favoring instead acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line therapy (5b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• In the absence of standardized protocols for the management of pain medications, oral antibiotics, and/or anticoagulants in the perioperative period, clinicians should discuss possible approaches with adult patients. “Educating patients about their perioperative treatment through discussion of treatment strategies may help alleviate anxiety, improve communication, increase patient satisfaction, and maximize patient compliance with the postoperative orders,” the guideline authors wrote.
• The authors suggest that adult patients may be offered follow-up assessments to discuss functional and cosmetic outcomes. “The return of the patient for follow-up visits is an excellent opportunity to better understand and measure these outcomes, improve patient-physician communication, and foster quality improvement. Postoperative follow-up can lead to increased communication between the patient and physician, thereby empowering patients to comment on satisfaction and other important outcomes measures,” they wrote.

What’s next

The guideline developers acknowledged that data are limited regarding reconstructive surgery following skin cancer resection, and that higher-quality studies would help to improve future guidelines. Dr. Chen said that greater use of prospective surgical databases and more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could inform further efforts.

The guideline development process was supported by the various groups represented. Dr. Chen and Dr. Cetrulo reported no relevant disclosures.

You’ve successfully resected a skin cancer lesion, leaving clear margins. Now what?

That’s the question the authors of an evidence-based guideline on reconstruction after skin cancer resection set out to answer.

The guideline – a joint effort of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Mohs Surgery, and American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

From the outset, the panel members realized that to keep the guideline manageable they had to limit recommendations to the practice of reconstruction defined as “cutaneous closure that requires a flap, graft, or tissue rearrangement.”

Other wound closure methods, such as secondary intention healing; simple closures; and complex closures that do not involve flaps, grafts, muscle, or bone, were not covered in the recommendations.

As with similar guidelines, the developers selected seven clinical questions to be addressed, and attempted to find consensus through literature searches, appraisal of the evidence, grading of recommendations, peer review, and public comment.

“We had a very heterogeneous set of things that we were trying to comment on, so we had to keep things somewhat generic,” lead author Andrew Chen, MD, chief of the division of plastic surgery, at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, said in an interview.

“Skin cancer and reconstruction affect different body areas and areas of different sizes. When we were creating the guidelines, we had to tailor the questions we could ask based on things that would make sense to answer, because obviously we couldn’t ask a question such as: ‘What’s better, a skin graft or a flap?’ Well, there are some things you can’t put a skin graft on – it won’t last, so we couldn’t ask that kind of question,” Dr. Chen said.

Curtis Cetrulo, MD, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the guideline process, said in an interview that the broad recommendations are in keeping with his practice and experience. He also acknowledged, however, the difficulty in creating a guideline that covers the complexity and heterogeneity of reconstructive surgery.

“These are generally good recommendations, but they’re recommendations only, with generally weak levels of evidence. What we really need are clinical trials that can give us definitive answers to some of these questions,” he said.

Recommendations
 

The seven key recommendations, based on the clinical questions raised, are summarized below:

• Delayed (asynchronous) reconstruction is acceptable. Although the quality of the evidence is low and the recommendations are listed as an option, the guideline authors said that depending on the situation, reconstruction can be performed either immediately after resection or delayed by days, weeks, “or even months.”
• Systemic antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in the interim between resection and reconstruction in adults. Here too, the evidence is low and the recommendation strength is weak, but in “the absence of data showing convincing benefits, systemic antibiotic therapy does not appear necessary or desirable in most cases when there is an interval between cancer resection and reconstruction,” the work group wrote.
• Clinicians may administer perioperative systemic antibiotics in a facility-based setting for adults undergoing reconstruction (3a), but antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in an office-based setting (3b). The rationale for these recommendations, supported by a moderate level of evidence, is that the risk of surgical-site infection is generally higher in facilities, compared with an office-based setting. Patients who undergo reconstruction in hospitals or surgical centers are more likely to have complex reconstructions or have risks that may make them suitable candidates for antibiotics, but patients in office-based setting may often be spared from the additional costs, side effects, and possible drug interactions from antibiotic use. “There is no evidence in either setting that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis provides infection risk reduction, compared with short-term prophylaxis,” the guideline working group wrote.
• Continue anticoagulant, antithrombotic, and antiplatelet medications for adult patients undergoing reconstruction after skin cancer resection in the office-based setting (4a), and in the facility-based setting should coordinate with the physician managing anticoagulation before modifying the medication prior to surgery (4b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• The guideline authors recommend against routine prescription of narcotics as first-line treatment for pain in adults undergoing skin reconstruction (5a), favoring instead acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line therapy (5b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• In the absence of standardized protocols for the management of pain medications, oral antibiotics, and/or anticoagulants in the perioperative period, clinicians should discuss possible approaches with adult patients. “Educating patients about their perioperative treatment through discussion of treatment strategies may help alleviate anxiety, improve communication, increase patient satisfaction, and maximize patient compliance with the postoperative orders,” the guideline authors wrote.
• The authors suggest that adult patients may be offered follow-up assessments to discuss functional and cosmetic outcomes. “The return of the patient for follow-up visits is an excellent opportunity to better understand and measure these outcomes, improve patient-physician communication, and foster quality improvement. Postoperative follow-up can lead to increased communication between the patient and physician, thereby empowering patients to comment on satisfaction and other important outcomes measures,” they wrote.

What’s next

The guideline developers acknowledged that data are limited regarding reconstructive surgery following skin cancer resection, and that higher-quality studies would help to improve future guidelines. Dr. Chen said that greater use of prospective surgical databases and more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could inform further efforts.

The guideline development process was supported by the various groups represented. Dr. Chen and Dr. Cetrulo reported no relevant disclosures.

You’ve successfully resected a skin cancer lesion, leaving clear margins. Now what?

That’s the question the authors of an evidence-based guideline on reconstruction after skin cancer resection set out to answer.

The guideline – a joint effort of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, American Academy of Dermatology, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, American College of Mohs Surgery, American Society for Mohs Surgery, and American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery – was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

From the outset, the panel members realized that to keep the guideline manageable they had to limit recommendations to the practice of reconstruction defined as “cutaneous closure that requires a flap, graft, or tissue rearrangement.”

Other wound closure methods, such as secondary intention healing; simple closures; and complex closures that do not involve flaps, grafts, muscle, or bone, were not covered in the recommendations.

As with similar guidelines, the developers selected seven clinical questions to be addressed, and attempted to find consensus through literature searches, appraisal of the evidence, grading of recommendations, peer review, and public comment.

“We had a very heterogeneous set of things that we were trying to comment on, so we had to keep things somewhat generic,” lead author Andrew Chen, MD, chief of the division of plastic surgery, at the University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, said in an interview.

“Skin cancer and reconstruction affect different body areas and areas of different sizes. When we were creating the guidelines, we had to tailor the questions we could ask based on things that would make sense to answer, because obviously we couldn’t ask a question such as: ‘What’s better, a skin graft or a flap?’ Well, there are some things you can’t put a skin graft on – it won’t last, so we couldn’t ask that kind of question,” Dr. Chen said.

Curtis Cetrulo, MD, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who was not involved in the guideline process, said in an interview that the broad recommendations are in keeping with his practice and experience. He also acknowledged, however, the difficulty in creating a guideline that covers the complexity and heterogeneity of reconstructive surgery.

“These are generally good recommendations, but they’re recommendations only, with generally weak levels of evidence. What we really need are clinical trials that can give us definitive answers to some of these questions,” he said.

Recommendations
 

The seven key recommendations, based on the clinical questions raised, are summarized below:

• Delayed (asynchronous) reconstruction is acceptable. Although the quality of the evidence is low and the recommendations are listed as an option, the guideline authors said that depending on the situation, reconstruction can be performed either immediately after resection or delayed by days, weeks, “or even months.”
• Systemic antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in the interim between resection and reconstruction in adults. Here too, the evidence is low and the recommendation strength is weak, but in “the absence of data showing convincing benefits, systemic antibiotic therapy does not appear necessary or desirable in most cases when there is an interval between cancer resection and reconstruction,” the work group wrote.
• Clinicians may administer perioperative systemic antibiotics in a facility-based setting for adults undergoing reconstruction (3a), but antibiotics should not be routinely prescribed in an office-based setting (3b). The rationale for these recommendations, supported by a moderate level of evidence, is that the risk of surgical-site infection is generally higher in facilities, compared with an office-based setting. Patients who undergo reconstruction in hospitals or surgical centers are more likely to have complex reconstructions or have risks that may make them suitable candidates for antibiotics, but patients in office-based setting may often be spared from the additional costs, side effects, and possible drug interactions from antibiotic use. “There is no evidence in either setting that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis provides infection risk reduction, compared with short-term prophylaxis,” the guideline working group wrote.
• Continue anticoagulant, antithrombotic, and antiplatelet medications for adult patients undergoing reconstruction after skin cancer resection in the office-based setting (4a), and in the facility-based setting should coordinate with the physician managing anticoagulation before modifying the medication prior to surgery (4b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• The guideline authors recommend against routine prescription of narcotics as first-line treatment for pain in adults undergoing skin reconstruction (5a), favoring instead acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line therapy (5b). Evidence quality and recommendation strength are both moderate.
• In the absence of standardized protocols for the management of pain medications, oral antibiotics, and/or anticoagulants in the perioperative period, clinicians should discuss possible approaches with adult patients. “Educating patients about their perioperative treatment through discussion of treatment strategies may help alleviate anxiety, improve communication, increase patient satisfaction, and maximize patient compliance with the postoperative orders,” the guideline authors wrote.
• The authors suggest that adult patients may be offered follow-up assessments to discuss functional and cosmetic outcomes. “The return of the patient for follow-up visits is an excellent opportunity to better understand and measure these outcomes, improve patient-physician communication, and foster quality improvement. Postoperative follow-up can lead to increased communication between the patient and physician, thereby empowering patients to comment on satisfaction and other important outcomes measures,” they wrote.

What’s next

The guideline developers acknowledged that data are limited regarding reconstructive surgery following skin cancer resection, and that higher-quality studies would help to improve future guidelines. Dr. Chen said that greater use of prospective surgical databases and more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes could inform further efforts.

The guideline development process was supported by the various groups represented. Dr. Chen and Dr. Cetrulo reported no relevant disclosures.

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vegetarians have more favorable levels of a number of biomarkers including cardiovascular-linked ones – total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A and B – than meat eaters, according to results of the largest study of its kind to date.

Results of the cross-sectional, observational study of 178,000 participants were presented as an electronic poster at this year’s online European Congress on Obesity by Jirapitcha Boonpor of the Institute of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“We found that the health benefits of becoming a vegetarian were independent of adiposity and other sociodemographic and lifestyle-related confounding factors,” senior author Carlos Celis-Morales, PhD, also from the University of Glasgow, said in an interview.

Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol concentrations for vegetarians were 21% and 16.4% lower than in meat eaters. But some biomarkers considered beneficial – including vitamin D concentrations – were lower in vegetarians, while some considered unhealthy – including triglycerides and cystatin-C levels – were higher.  

Vegetarian diets have recently become much more popular, but there is insufficient information about the health benefits. Prior reports of associations between biomarkers and a vegetarian diet were unclear, including evidence of any metabolic benefits, noted Dr. Celis-Morales.

Importantly, participants in the study had followed a vegetarian or meat-eater diet for at least 5 years before their biomarkers in blood and urine were assessed.

“If you modify your diet, then, 2 weeks later, you can see changes in some metabolic markers, but changes in markers of cardiovascular disease will take 5-10 years,” he explained.
 

No single biomarker can assess health

Asked to comment on the findings, John C. Mathers, PhD, noted that they clearly confirm the importance of not reading any biomarker result in isolation.

Health is complex and individual markers tell you just part of the story,” said Dr. Mathers of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle (England) University.

He says a vegetarian diet can be nourishing but cautioned that “just because someone excludes meat from their diet does not mean necessarily that they will be eating a healthy diet.”

“Some of the biomarker differences seen in this work – such as the lower concentrations of total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, GGT [gamma-glutamyl transferase], and ALT [alanine transaminase] – are indicators that the vegetarians were healthier than the meat eaters. However, other differences were less encouraging, including the lower concentrations of vitamin D and higher concentrations of triglycerides and cystatin-C.”

Also reflecting on the results, Jose Lara Gallegos, PhD, senior lecturer in human nutrition at Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said they support previous evidence from large studies such as the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), which showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of heart disease.

“A vegetarian diet might also be associated with lower risk for liver diseases such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Gallegos said, but added that some levels of biomarkers considered to be “healthy” were lower in the vegetarians, and it is important to remember that strictly restricted diets might be associated with potential risks of nutritional inadequacies.

“Other, less restrictive dietary patterns, such as a Mediterranean diet, are also associated with ... health benefits,” he observed.
 

Large data sample from the UK Biobank study

“Specifically, we wanted to know if vegetarians were healthier because they are generally leaner and lead healthier lives, or whether their diet specifically was responsible for their improved metabolic and cardiovascular health,” Dr. Celis-Morales explained.

Data were included from 177,723 healthy participants from the UK Biobank study who were aged 37-73 years and had reported no major dietary changes over the last 5 years. In total, 4,111 participants were self-reported vegetarians who followed a diet without red meat, poultry, or fish, and 166,516 participants were meat eaters.

Nineteen biomarkers related to diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and liver and renal function were included, and the associations between vegetarian diet and biomarkers, compared with meat eaters, were examined.

To minimize confounding, the findings were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, education, ethnicity, smoking, total sedentary time, type of physical activity, alcohol intake, body mass index, and waist circumference.

Compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly lower concentrations of 14 biomarkers, including total cholesterol (21% lower); LDL (16% lower); lipoprotein A (1% lower), lipoprotein B (4% lower), and liver function markers (GGT: 354% lower, and ALT: 153% lower), IGF-1 (134% lower), urate (122% lower), total protein (29% lower), creatinine (607% lower), and C-reactive protein (10% lower).

However, the researchers found that, compared with meat eaters, vegetarians had significantly higher concentrations of some unhealthy biomarkers, including triglycerides (15% higher) and cystatin-C (4% higher), and lower levels of some beneficial biomarkers including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (5% lower), vitamin D (635% lower), and calcium (0.7% lower).

No associations were found for hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, and aminotransferase.

“Some biomarkers, for example urate, were very low in vegetarians, and this served to verify our results because we expected meat eaters to have higher levels of urate,” remarked Dr. Celis-Morales.
 

Diet commitment and cardiovascular outcomes

Many people, whether vegetarians or meat-eaters, follow short-term diets, for example, the Atkins or the 5:2 diet, and often lack continuity switching from one diet to the next, or back to regular eating.  

“They are healthy, but they do not commit for long enough to make a difference to metabolic markers or potentially long-term health. In contrast, vegetarians are usually fully committed but the reasons behind this commitment might be a concern for the environment or animal welfare, for example,” Dr. Celis-Morales pointed out.

However, he added that many vegetarians replace the meat in their diet with unhealthy alternatives. “They often eat too much pasta or potatoes, or other high-energy food with low nutritional value.”

Having identified metabolic markers specific to long-term vegetarian diets, Dr. Celis-Morales wanted to know what happens to vegetarians’ long-term cardiovascular health. He analyzed and published these outcomes in a separate study published in December 2020.

“Over 9 years of follow-up, we have found that vegetarians have a lower risk in terms of myocardial infarction in the long-term, as well as other cardiovascular disease,” he reported.

Asked whether there was an optimum age or time in life to become a vegetarian to improve health, Dr. Celis-Morales explained that the healthier you are, the less likely you will reap the health benefits of dietary changes – for example to being a vegetarian.

“It is more likely that those people who have unhealthy lifestyle risk factors, such as smoking, and high consumption of high-energy foods or processed meat are more likely to see positive health effects,” he said.  

Lifestyle changes to improve cardiovascular outcomes are usually more likely to be required at 40 or 50 years old than at younger ages. He also noted that metabolic markers tend to show clear improvement at around 3 months after adopting a particular diet but improvements in disease outcomes take a lot longer to become evident.

Dr. Celis-Morales and his team are currently conducting a further analysis to understand if the vegetarian diet is also associated with a lower risk of cancer, depression, and dementia, compared with meat-eaters.

Dr. Celis-Morales, Dr. Mathers, and Dr. Gallegos have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab (Perjeta) and trastuzumab (Herceptin) on top of anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer was associated with a low rate of clinically relevant cardiac events in the final follow-up of the BERENICE study.

After more than 5 years, 1.0%-1.5% of patients who had locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage breast cancer developed heart failure, and around 12%-13% showed any significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Importantly, “there were no new safety concerns that arose during long-term follow-up,” study investigator Chau Dang, MD, said in presenting the findings at the European Society for Medical Oncology: Breast Cancer virtual meeting.

Dr. Dang, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, reported that the most common cause of death was disease progression.

BERENICE was designed as a cardiac safety study and so not powered to look at long-term efficacy, which Dr. Dang was clear in reporting. Nevertheless event-free survival (EFS), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), and overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years were all high, at least a respective 89.2%, 91%, and 93.8%, she said. “The medians have not been reached,” she observed.

“These data support the use of dual HER2 blockade with pertuzumab-trastuzumab–based regimens, including in combination with dose-dense, anthracycline-based chemotherapy, across the neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment settings for the complete treatment of patients with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer,” Dr. Dang said.

Evandro de Azambuja, MD, PhD, the invited discussant for the trial agreed that the regimens tested appeared “safe from a cardiac standpoint.” However, “you cannot forget that today we are using much less anthracyclines in our patient population.”

Patients in trials are also very different from those treated in clinical practice, often being younger and much fitter, he said. Therefore, it may be important to look at the baseline cardiac medications and comorbidities, Dr. de Azambuja, a medical oncologist at the Institut Jules Bordet in Brussels, Belgium, suggested.

That said, the BERENICE findings sit well with other trials that have been conducted, Dr. de Azambuja pointed out.

“If we look at other trials that have also tested dual HER2 blockade with anthracycline or nonanthracycline regimens, all of them reassure that dual blockade is not more cardiotoxic than single blockade,” he said. This includes trials such as TRYPHAENA, APHINITY, KRISTINE, NeoSphere and PEONY.

The 3-year IDFS rate of 91% in BERENICE also compares well to that seen in APHINITY (94%), Dr. de Azambuja said.
 

BERENICE study design

BERENICE was a multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized and noncomparative phase 2 trial that recruited 400 patients across 75 centers in 12 countries.

Eligibility criteria were that participants had to have been centrally confirmed HER2-positive locally advanced, inflammatory or early breast cancer, with the latter defined as tumors bigger than 2 cm or greater than 5 mm in size, and be node-positive. Patients also had to have a starting LVEF of 55% or higher.

Patients were allocated to one of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens depending on the choice of their physician. One group received a regimen of dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC) given every 2 weeks for four cycles and then paclitaxel every week for 12 cycles. The other group received 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) every 3 weeks for four cycles and then docetaxel every 3 weeks for four cycles.

Pertuzumab and trastuzumab were started at the same time as the taxanes in both groups and given every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then underwent surgery and continued pertuzumab/trastuzumab treatment alone for a further 13 cycles.

The co-primary endpoints were the incidence of New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic LVEF decline of 10% or more.

The primary analysis of the trial was published in 2018 and, at that time, it was reported that three patients in the ddAC cohort and none in the FEC cohort experienced heart failure. LVEF decline was observed in a respective 6.5% and 2% of patients.
 

Discussion points

Dr. de Azambuja noted that the contribution of the chemotherapy to the efficacy cannot be assessed because of the nonrandomized trial design. That should not matter, pointed out Sybille Loibl, MD, PhD, during discussion.

“I think it compares nicely to other trials that looked at dose-dense chemotherapy,” said Dr. Loibl, who is an associate professor at the University of Frankfurt in Germany. “It seems that, in the light of what we consider today probably one of the best anti-HER2 treatments, the chemotherapy is less relevant, and that’s why a dose-dense regimen doesn’t add so much on a standard anthracycline taxane-containing regimen.”

Dr. de Azambuja also commented on the assessment of cardiotoxicity and the use of reduced LVEF as a measure: LVEF decline is a late effect of cardiotoxicity, he observed, and he suggested a different approach in future trials.

“If you use Global Longitudinal Strain, this could be an optimal parameter to detect early subclinical LVEF dysfunction and you should consider it for the next trials looking for cardiac safety. Also, cardiac biomarkers. This was not implemented in this trial, and I strongly recommend this should be for the next trial.”

The BERENICE trial was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Dr. Dang disclosed receiving consultancy fees from F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, and Puma Biotechnology. Dr. de Azambuja was not involved in the study but disclosed receiving honoraria, travel grants, research grants from Roche and Genentech as well as from other companies. Dr. Loibl was one of the cochairs of the session and, among disclosures regarding many other companies, has been an invited speaker for Roche and received reimbursement via her institution for a writing engagement.

Dermatologists and other clinicians should advise their patients with skin of color to practice sensible sun protection, including wearing protective clothing, staying in the shade when outdoors, and applying a tinted sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or greater to exposed areas, according to Henry W. Lim, MD.

In addition, “with rigorous photoprotection, vitamin D supplementation should be advised to patients,” Dr. Lim, a former chair of the department of dermatology at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “One multivitamin a day should be sufficient for most patients. This is especially relevant because we do know that skin of color patients tend to have lower vitamin D levels to start with.”

Photoprotection for people of color helps minimize the development of photodermatoses, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, polymorphous light eruption, and chronic actinic dermatitis, he said. In a retrospective chart review of 1,080 people conducted at four academic medical centers in the United States, Dr. Lim and colleagues found a higher proportion of polymorphous light eruption and chronic actinic dermatitis in Black individuals, and a higher proportion of photoallergic contact dermatitis, phototoxic drug eruptions, phytophotodermatitis, porphyria, and solar urticaria in White individuals.

“Another pediatric photodermatosis, actinic prurigo, tends to occur most often in Mestizo individuals, patients of American Indian heritage,” he added. “This is a significant issue, especially in Latin America.”

In a systematic review of 20 studies in the medical literature, researchers assessed the quality of life and psychological impact of photodermatoses in affected patients. Studies included in the review drew from 2,487 adults and 119 children. Among adults, the self-administered Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) revealed that photodermatoses adversely affected employment, education, and leisure activities in adults. Among children, the condition adversely affected outdoor activities and exacerbated symptoms in those with erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP).

As for skin cancer risk, the association between UV light exposure and the development of melanoma is not as strong in people with skin of color, compared with light-skinned individuals. In a recent systematic review of 13 studies on the topic, 11 showed no association, one showed a small positive relationship in Black males and 1 showed a weak association in Hispanic males.

“The conclusion from this review is that UV protection for melanoma prevention in people of color is not supported by most studies,” said Dr. Lim, who was not affiliated with the review. “The authors also noted, however, that the evidence is of moderate to low quality. Larger studies should be done.”

The association between UV exposure and the development to squamous cell cancer in skin of color is also not strong. “However, we do know that sun exposure is associated with the development of basal cell carcinoma in this population,” he said.

Sunscreen ingredient studies

Dr. Lim also highlighted findings from two studies related to the effect of sunscreen application on plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients, both in adults. In the most recent analysis, scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical trial in 48 individuals with skin types II-IV.

Participants applied sunscreen at 2 mg/cm² to 75% of body surface area at 0 hours on day 1 and 4 times on day 2 through day 4 at 2-hour intervals. Over the course of 21 days, the researchers collected 34 blood samples from each participant, and evaluated six active ingredients in four sunscreen products: avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate.

For all active ingredients, levels of greater than 0.5 ng/mL were detected after a single application on day 1. Levels of greater than 0.5 ng/mL were detected up to day 7, and up to day 21 for oxybenzone. All were detected in skin on days 7 and 14 via tape stripping. The authors called for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings and emphasized that the results “do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.”

The FDA is asking for additional studies on the safety of these 12 filters, noted Dr. Lim, who is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. On Feb. 26, 2019, the FDA issued a proposed rule regarding sunscreen drug products for over-the-counter human use. It proposes that the 16 UV filters be classified into one of 3 categories. Category I would include zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE). Category II would include PABA and trolamine salicylate, which are not used in the United States and are not GRASE. Category III would include 12 filters that lack insufficient safety data to make a determination regarding GRASE.

The final FDA rule was scheduled to be released in September of 2020, but a result of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the FDA “will be moving from a laborious rulemaking process to an administrative order process, which means it should not take as long to implement a monograph,” Dr. Lim said. “The FDA has decided that there will not be a final rule regarding sunscreen drug products,” but is required to issue a proposed administrative order by Sept. 27, 2021, he said.

When the final administrative order has been issued, manufacturers would have at least 1 year to comply with sunscreen products offered in the United States. “The approximate timeline is probably going to be 2023,” he said.

Dr. Lim disclosed that he is an investigator for Incyte, L’Oreal, Pfizer, and the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and a consultant for Pierre Fabre, ISDIN, Ferndale, La Roche–Posay, and Beiersdorf. He has been a speaker at general educational sessions sponsored by La Roche–Posay and Cantabria Labs.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Dermatologists and other clinicians should advise their patients with skin of color to practice sensible sun protection, including wearing protective clothing, staying in the shade when outdoors, and applying a tinted sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or greater to exposed areas, according to Henry W. Lim, MD.

In addition, “with rigorous photoprotection, vitamin D supplementation should be advised to patients,” Dr. Lim, a former chair of the department of dermatology at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “One multivitamin a day should be sufficient for most patients. This is especially relevant because we do know that skin of color patients tend to have lower vitamin D levels to start with.”

Photoprotection for people of color helps minimize the development of photodermatoses, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, polymorphous light eruption, and chronic actinic dermatitis, he said. In a retrospective chart review of 1,080 people conducted at four academic medical centers in the United States, Dr. Lim and colleagues found a higher proportion of polymorphous light eruption and chronic actinic dermatitis in Black individuals, and a higher proportion of photoallergic contact dermatitis, phototoxic drug eruptions, phytophotodermatitis, porphyria, and solar urticaria in White individuals.

“Another pediatric photodermatosis, actinic prurigo, tends to occur most often in Mestizo individuals, patients of American Indian heritage,” he added. “This is a significant issue, especially in Latin America.”

In a systematic review of 20 studies in the medical literature, researchers assessed the quality of life and psychological impact of photodermatoses in affected patients. Studies included in the review drew from 2,487 adults and 119 children. Among adults, the self-administered Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) revealed that photodermatoses adversely affected employment, education, and leisure activities in adults. Among children, the condition adversely affected outdoor activities and exacerbated symptoms in those with erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP).

As for skin cancer risk, the association between UV light exposure and the development of melanoma is not as strong in people with skin of color, compared with light-skinned individuals. In a recent systematic review of 13 studies on the topic, 11 showed no association, one showed a small positive relationship in Black males and 1 showed a weak association in Hispanic males.

“The conclusion from this review is that UV protection for melanoma prevention in people of color is not supported by most studies,” said Dr. Lim, who was not affiliated with the review. “The authors also noted, however, that the evidence is of moderate to low quality. Larger studies should be done.”

The association between UV exposure and the development to squamous cell cancer in skin of color is also not strong. “However, we do know that sun exposure is associated with the development of basal cell carcinoma in this population,” he said.

Sunscreen ingredient studies

Dr. Lim also highlighted findings from two studies related to the effect of sunscreen application on plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients, both in adults. In the most recent analysis, scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical trial in 48 individuals with skin types II-IV.

Participants applied sunscreen at 2 mg/cm² to 75% of body surface area at 0 hours on day 1 and 4 times on day 2 through day 4 at 2-hour intervals. Over the course of 21 days, the researchers collected 34 blood samples from each participant, and evaluated six active ingredients in four sunscreen products: avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate.

For all active ingredients, levels of greater than 0.5 ng/mL were detected after a single application on day 1. Levels of greater than 0.5 ng/mL were detected up to day 7, and up to day 21 for oxybenzone. All were detected in skin on days 7 and 14 via tape stripping. The authors called for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings and emphasized that the results “do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.”

The FDA is asking for additional studies on the safety of these 12 filters, noted Dr. Lim, who is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. On Feb. 26, 2019, the FDA issued a proposed rule regarding sunscreen drug products for over-the-counter human use. It proposes that the 16 UV filters be classified into one of 3 categories. Category I would include zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE). Category II would include PABA and trolamine salicylate, which are not used in the United States and are not GRASE. Category III would include 12 filters that lack insufficient safety data to make a determination regarding GRASE.

The final FDA rule was scheduled to be released in September of 2020, but a result of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the FDA “will be moving from a laborious rulemaking process to an administrative order process, which means it should not take as long to implement a monograph,” Dr. Lim said. “The FDA has decided that there will not be a final rule regarding sunscreen drug products,” but is required to issue a proposed administrative order by Sept. 27, 2021, he said.

When the final administrative order has been issued, manufacturers would have at least 1 year to comply with sunscreen products offered in the United States. “The approximate timeline is probably going to be 2023,” he said.

Dr. Lim disclosed that he is an investigator for Incyte, L’Oreal, Pfizer, and the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and a consultant for Pierre Fabre, ISDIN, Ferndale, La Roche–Posay, and Beiersdorf. He has been a speaker at general educational sessions sponsored by La Roche–Posay and Cantabria Labs.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Dermatologists and other clinicians should advise their patients with skin of color to practice sensible sun protection, including wearing protective clothing, staying in the shade when outdoors, and applying a tinted sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or greater to exposed areas, according to Henry W. Lim, MD.

In addition, “with rigorous photoprotection, vitamin D supplementation should be advised to patients,” Dr. Lim, a former chair of the department of dermatology at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “One multivitamin a day should be sufficient for most patients. This is especially relevant because we do know that skin of color patients tend to have lower vitamin D levels to start with.”

Photoprotection for people of color helps minimize the development of photodermatoses, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, polymorphous light eruption, and chronic actinic dermatitis, he said. In a retrospective chart review of 1,080 people conducted at four academic medical centers in the United States, Dr. Lim and colleagues found a higher proportion of polymorphous light eruption and chronic actinic dermatitis in Black individuals, and a higher proportion of photoallergic contact dermatitis, phototoxic drug eruptions, phytophotodermatitis, porphyria, and solar urticaria in White individuals.

“Another pediatric photodermatosis, actinic prurigo, tends to occur most often in Mestizo individuals, patients of American Indian heritage,” he added. “This is a significant issue, especially in Latin America.”

In a systematic review of 20 studies in the medical literature, researchers assessed the quality of life and psychological impact of photodermatoses in affected patients. Studies included in the review drew from 2,487 adults and 119 children. Among adults, the self-administered Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) revealed that photodermatoses adversely affected employment, education, and leisure activities in adults. Among children, the condition adversely affected outdoor activities and exacerbated symptoms in those with erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP).

As for skin cancer risk, the association between UV light exposure and the development of melanoma is not as strong in people with skin of color, compared with light-skinned individuals. In a recent systematic review of 13 studies on the topic, 11 showed no association, one showed a small positive relationship in Black males and 1 showed a weak association in Hispanic males.

“The conclusion from this review is that UV protection for melanoma prevention in people of color is not supported by most studies,” said Dr. Lim, who was not affiliated with the review. “The authors also noted, however, that the evidence is of moderate to low quality. Larger studies should be done.”

The association between UV exposure and the development to squamous cell cancer in skin of color is also not strong. “However, we do know that sun exposure is associated with the development of basal cell carcinoma in this population,” he said.

Sunscreen ingredient studies

Dr. Lim also highlighted findings from two studies related to the effect of sunscreen application on plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients, both in adults. In the most recent analysis, scientists at the Food and Drug Administration and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical trial in 48 individuals with skin types II-IV.

Participants applied sunscreen at 2 mg/cm² to 75% of body surface area at 0 hours on day 1 and 4 times on day 2 through day 4 at 2-hour intervals. Over the course of 21 days, the researchers collected 34 blood samples from each participant, and evaluated six active ingredients in four sunscreen products: avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate.

For all active ingredients, levels of greater than 0.5 ng/mL were detected after a single application on day 1. Levels of greater than 0.5 ng/mL were detected up to day 7, and up to day 21 for oxybenzone. All were detected in skin on days 7 and 14 via tape stripping. The authors called for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings and emphasized that the results “do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.”

The FDA is asking for additional studies on the safety of these 12 filters, noted Dr. Lim, who is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. On Feb. 26, 2019, the FDA issued a proposed rule regarding sunscreen drug products for over-the-counter human use. It proposes that the 16 UV filters be classified into one of 3 categories. Category I would include zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which are generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE). Category II would include PABA and trolamine salicylate, which are not used in the United States and are not GRASE. Category III would include 12 filters that lack insufficient safety data to make a determination regarding GRASE.

The final FDA rule was scheduled to be released in September of 2020, but a result of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the FDA “will be moving from a laborious rulemaking process to an administrative order process, which means it should not take as long to implement a monograph,” Dr. Lim said. “The FDA has decided that there will not be a final rule regarding sunscreen drug products,” but is required to issue a proposed administrative order by Sept. 27, 2021, he said.

When the final administrative order has been issued, manufacturers would have at least 1 year to comply with sunscreen products offered in the United States. “The approximate timeline is probably going to be 2023,” he said.

Dr. Lim disclosed that he is an investigator for Incyte, L’Oreal, Pfizer, and the Patient-centered Outcomes Research Institute, and a consultant for Pierre Fabre, ISDIN, Ferndale, La Roche–Posay, and Beiersdorf. He has been a speaker at general educational sessions sponsored by La Roche–Posay and Cantabria Labs.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

What a year it has been in the world of hospital medicine with all the changes, challenges, and uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Some hospitalist programs were hit hard early on with an early surge, when little was known about COVID-19, and other programs have had more time to plan and adapt to later surges.

As many readers of The Hospitalist know, the Society of Hospital Medicine publishes a biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report – last published in September 2020 using data from 2019. The SoHM Report contains a wealth of information that many groups find useful in evaluating their programs, with topics ranging from compensation to staffing to scheduling. As some prior months’ Survey Insights columns have alluded to, with the rapid pace of change in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Hospital Medicine made the decision to publish an addendum highlighting the myriad of adjustments and adaptations that have occurred in such a short period of time. The COVID-19 Addendum is available to all purchasers of the SoHM Report and contains data from survey responses submitted in September 2020.

Let’s take a look at what transpired in 2020, starting with staffing – no doubt a challenge for many groups. During some periods of time, patient volumes may have fallen below historical averages with stay-at-home orders, canceled procedures, and a reluctance by patients to seek medical care. In contrast, for many groups, other parts of the year were all-hands-on-deck scenarios to care for extraordinary surges in patient volume. To compound this, many hospitalist groups had physicians and staff facing quarantine or isolation requirements because of exposures or contracting COVID-19, and locums positions may have been difficult to fill because of travel restrictions and extreme demand.

What operational changes were made in response to these staffing challenges? Perhaps one notable finding from the COVID-19 Addendum was the need for contingency planning and backup systems. From the 2020 SoHM, prior to the pandemic, 47.4% of adult hospital medicine groups had backup systems in place. In our recently published addendum, we found that 61.9% of groups instituted a backup system where none previously existed. In addition, 54.2% of groups modified their existing backup system. Some 39.6% of hospital medicine groups also utilized clinicians from other service lines to help cover service needs.

Aside from staffing, hospitals faced unprecedented financial challenges, and these effects rippled through to hospitalists. Our addendum found that 42.0% of hospitalist groups faced reductions in salary or bonuses, and 35.5% of hospital medicine groups reduced provider compensation by a reduction of work hours or shifts. I’ve personally been struck by these findings – that many hospitalists at the front-lines of COVID-19 received salary reductions, albeit temporary for many groups, during one of the most challenging years of their professional careers. Our addendum, interestingly, also found that a smaller 10.7% of groups instituted hazard pay for clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients.

So, are the changes and challenges your group faced similar to what was experienced by other hospital medicine programs? These findings and many more interesting and useful pieces of data are available in the full COVID-19 Addendum. Perhaps my biggest takeaway is that hospitalists have been perhaps the most uniquely positioned specialty to tackle the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have always been a dynamic, changing field, ready to lead and tackle change – and while change may have happened more quickly and in ways that were unforeseen just a year ago, hospitalists have undoubtedly demonstrated their strengths as leaders ready to adapt and rise to the occasion.

I am optimistic that, as we move beyond the pandemic in the coming months and years, the value that hospitalists have proven yet again will yield long-term recognition and benefits to our programs and our specialty.

Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and clinical professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

What a year it has been in the world of hospital medicine with all the changes, challenges, and uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Some hospitalist programs were hit hard early on with an early surge, when little was known about COVID-19, and other programs have had more time to plan and adapt to later surges.

As many readers of The Hospitalist know, the Society of Hospital Medicine publishes a biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report – last published in September 2020 using data from 2019. The SoHM Report contains a wealth of information that many groups find useful in evaluating their programs, with topics ranging from compensation to staffing to scheduling. As some prior months’ Survey Insights columns have alluded to, with the rapid pace of change in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Hospital Medicine made the decision to publish an addendum highlighting the myriad of adjustments and adaptations that have occurred in such a short period of time. The COVID-19 Addendum is available to all purchasers of the SoHM Report and contains data from survey responses submitted in September 2020.

Let’s take a look at what transpired in 2020, starting with staffing – no doubt a challenge for many groups. During some periods of time, patient volumes may have fallen below historical averages with stay-at-home orders, canceled procedures, and a reluctance by patients to seek medical care. In contrast, for many groups, other parts of the year were all-hands-on-deck scenarios to care for extraordinary surges in patient volume. To compound this, many hospitalist groups had physicians and staff facing quarantine or isolation requirements because of exposures or contracting COVID-19, and locums positions may have been difficult to fill because of travel restrictions and extreme demand.

What operational changes were made in response to these staffing challenges? Perhaps one notable finding from the COVID-19 Addendum was the need for contingency planning and backup systems. From the 2020 SoHM, prior to the pandemic, 47.4% of adult hospital medicine groups had backup systems in place. In our recently published addendum, we found that 61.9% of groups instituted a backup system where none previously existed. In addition, 54.2% of groups modified their existing backup system. Some 39.6% of hospital medicine groups also utilized clinicians from other service lines to help cover service needs.

Aside from staffing, hospitals faced unprecedented financial challenges, and these effects rippled through to hospitalists. Our addendum found that 42.0% of hospitalist groups faced reductions in salary or bonuses, and 35.5% of hospital medicine groups reduced provider compensation by a reduction of work hours or shifts. I’ve personally been struck by these findings – that many hospitalists at the front-lines of COVID-19 received salary reductions, albeit temporary for many groups, during one of the most challenging years of their professional careers. Our addendum, interestingly, also found that a smaller 10.7% of groups instituted hazard pay for clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients.

So, are the changes and challenges your group faced similar to what was experienced by other hospital medicine programs? These findings and many more interesting and useful pieces of data are available in the full COVID-19 Addendum. Perhaps my biggest takeaway is that hospitalists have been perhaps the most uniquely positioned specialty to tackle the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have always been a dynamic, changing field, ready to lead and tackle change – and while change may have happened more quickly and in ways that were unforeseen just a year ago, hospitalists have undoubtedly demonstrated their strengths as leaders ready to adapt and rise to the occasion.

I am optimistic that, as we move beyond the pandemic in the coming months and years, the value that hospitalists have proven yet again will yield long-term recognition and benefits to our programs and our specialty.

Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and clinical professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

What a year it has been in the world of hospital medicine with all the changes, challenges, and uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. Some hospitalist programs were hit hard early on with an early surge, when little was known about COVID-19, and other programs have had more time to plan and adapt to later surges.

As many readers of The Hospitalist know, the Society of Hospital Medicine publishes a biennial State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report – last published in September 2020 using data from 2019. The SoHM Report contains a wealth of information that many groups find useful in evaluating their programs, with topics ranging from compensation to staffing to scheduling. As some prior months’ Survey Insights columns have alluded to, with the rapid pace of change in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Hospital Medicine made the decision to publish an addendum highlighting the myriad of adjustments and adaptations that have occurred in such a short period of time. The COVID-19 Addendum is available to all purchasers of the SoHM Report and contains data from survey responses submitted in September 2020.

Let’s take a look at what transpired in 2020, starting with staffing – no doubt a challenge for many groups. During some periods of time, patient volumes may have fallen below historical averages with stay-at-home orders, canceled procedures, and a reluctance by patients to seek medical care. In contrast, for many groups, other parts of the year were all-hands-on-deck scenarios to care for extraordinary surges in patient volume. To compound this, many hospitalist groups had physicians and staff facing quarantine or isolation requirements because of exposures or contracting COVID-19, and locums positions may have been difficult to fill because of travel restrictions and extreme demand.

What operational changes were made in response to these staffing challenges? Perhaps one notable finding from the COVID-19 Addendum was the need for contingency planning and backup systems. From the 2020 SoHM, prior to the pandemic, 47.4% of adult hospital medicine groups had backup systems in place. In our recently published addendum, we found that 61.9% of groups instituted a backup system where none previously existed. In addition, 54.2% of groups modified their existing backup system. Some 39.6% of hospital medicine groups also utilized clinicians from other service lines to help cover service needs.

Aside from staffing, hospitals faced unprecedented financial challenges, and these effects rippled through to hospitalists. Our addendum found that 42.0% of hospitalist groups faced reductions in salary or bonuses, and 35.5% of hospital medicine groups reduced provider compensation by a reduction of work hours or shifts. I’ve personally been struck by these findings – that many hospitalists at the front-lines of COVID-19 received salary reductions, albeit temporary for many groups, during one of the most challenging years of their professional careers. Our addendum, interestingly, also found that a smaller 10.7% of groups instituted hazard pay for clinicians caring for COVID-19 patients.

So, are the changes and challenges your group faced similar to what was experienced by other hospital medicine programs? These findings and many more interesting and useful pieces of data are available in the full COVID-19 Addendum. Perhaps my biggest takeaway is that hospitalists have been perhaps the most uniquely positioned specialty to tackle the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. We have always been a dynamic, changing field, ready to lead and tackle change – and while change may have happened more quickly and in ways that were unforeseen just a year ago, hospitalists have undoubtedly demonstrated their strengths as leaders ready to adapt and rise to the occasion.

I am optimistic that, as we move beyond the pandemic in the coming months and years, the value that hospitalists have proven yet again will yield long-term recognition and benefits to our programs and our specialty.

Dr. Huang is a physician adviser and clinical professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of California, San Diego. He is a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

The American College of Cardiology pulled off an impressive all-virtual meeting in March 2020, less than 3 weeks after canceling its in-person event and just 2 weeks after COVID-19 was declared a national emergency.

Optimistic plans for the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology (ACC 2021) to be a March hybrid affair in Atlanta pivoted not once, but twice, as the pandemic evolved, with the date pushed back 2 full months, to May 15-17, and the format revised to fully virtual.

“While this meeting is being delivered virtually, I think you’ll see there have been benefits in the time to plan and also the lessons that ACC has learned in virtual education over the past year. This has come together to really create a robust educational and scientific agenda,” ACC 2021 chair Pamela B. Morris, MD, said in a press conference focused on the upcoming meeting.

Over the 3 days, there will be more than 200 education sessions, 10 guideline-specific sessions, and 11 learning pathways that include core areas, but also special topics, such as COVID-19 and the emerging cardio-obstetrics subspecialty.

The meeting will be delivered through a new virtual education program built to optimize real-time interaction between faculty members and attendees, she said. A dedicated portal on the platform will allow attendees to interact virtually, for example, with presenters of the nearly 3,000 ePosters and 420 moderated posters.

For those suffering from Zoom fatigue, the increasingly popular Heart2Heart stage talks have also been converted to podcasts, which cover topics like gender equity in cardiology, the evolving role of advanced practice professionals, and “one of my favorites: art as a tool for healing,” said Dr. Morris, from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. “Those sessions are really not to be missed.”

Reconnecting is an underlying theme of the meeting but the great divider will not be ignored. COVID-19 will be the focus of two 90-minute Intensive Sessions on Saturday, May 15, the first kicking off at 10:30 a.m. ET, with the Bishop Keynote lecture on bringing health equity to the frontline of cardiovascular care, followed by lessons learned during the pandemic, how to conduct clinical trials, and vaccine development.

The second session, set for 12:15 p.m., continues the “silver linings” theme, with case presentations on advances in telehealth, myocardial involvement, and thrombosis in COVID. For those wanting more, 18 abstracts are on tap in a 2-hour Spotlight on Special Topics session beginning at 2:30 p.m.

Asked about the pandemic’s effect on bringing science to fruition this past year, Dr. Morris said there’s no question it’s slowed some of the progress the cardiology community had made but, like clinical practice, “we’ve also surmounted many of those obstacles.”

“I think research has rebounded,” she said. “Just in terms of the number of abstracts and the quality of abstracts that were submitted this year, I don’t think there’s any question that we are right on par with previous years.”

Indeed, 5,258 abstracts from 76 countries were submitted, with more than 3,400 chosen for oral and poster presentation, including 25 late-breaking clinical trials to be presented in five sessions.

The late-breaking presentations and discussions will be prerecorded but speakers and panelists have been invited to be present during the streaming to answer live any questions that may arise in the chat box, ACC 2021 vice chair Douglas Drachman, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
 

Late-breaking clinical trials

The Joint ACC/JACC Late-Breaking Clinical Trials I (Saturday, May 15, 9:00 a.m.–-10:00 a.m.) kicks off with PARADISE-MI, the first head-to-head comparison of an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and an ACE inhibitor in patients with reduced ejection fractions (EFs) after MI but no history of heart failure (HF), studying 200 mg sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) versus 5 mg of ramipril, both twice daily, in 5,669 patients.

Sacubitril/valsartan was initially approved for HF with reduced EF and added a new indication to treat some HF patients with preserved EF. Novartis, however, recently told investors that although numerical trends consistently favored the ARNI over the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the phase 3 study failed to meet the primary endpoint for efficacy superiority of reducing the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death and HF events after an acute MI.

Second up is ADAPTABLE, which looks to close a surprising evidence gap over whether 81 mg or 325 mg daily is the optimal dose of the ubiquitously prescribed aspirin for secondary prevention in high-risk patients with established atherosclerotic CV disease.

The open-label, randomized study will look at efficacy and major bleeding over roughly 4 years in 15,000 patients within PCORnet, the National Patient-centered Clinical Research Network, a partnership of clinical research, health plan research, and patient-powered networks created to streamline patient-reported outcomes research.

“This study will not only give important clinical information for us, practically speaking, whether we should prescribe lower- or higher-dose aspirin, but it may also serve as a template for future pragmatic clinical trial design in the real world,” Dr. Drachman said during the press conference.

Up next is the 4,812-patient Canadian LAAOS III, the largest trial to examine the efficacy of left atrial appendage occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) already undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome is the first occurrence of stroke or systemic arterial embolism over an average follow-up of 4 years.

Percutaneous closure of the left atrial appendage (LAA) has been shown to reduce stroke in AFib patients at high-risk of bleeding on systemic anticoagulation. But these devices can be expensive and studies haven’t included patients who also have valvular heart disease, a group that actually comprises more than half of patients undergoing cardiac surgery who also have AFib, he noted.

At the same time, surgical LAA closure studies have been small and have had very mixed results. “There isn’t a large-scale rigorous assessment out there for these patients undergoing surgery, so I think this is going to be fascinating to see,” Dr. Drachman said.

The session closes with ATLANTIS, which looks to shed some light on the role of anticoagulation therapy in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI). POPular TAVI, presented at ACC 2020, showed aspirin alone was the preferred antithrombotic therapy over aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) in patients not on oral anticoagulants, but the optimal anticoagulation regimen remains unsettled.

The French open-label, 1,510-patient ATLANTIS trial examined whether the novel oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) is superior in preventing CV events after TAVR, compared with antiplatelet therapy in patients without an indication for anticoagulation and compared with vitamin K antagonists in those receiving anticoagulants.

An ATLANTIS 4D CT substudy of valve thrombosis is also slated for Saturday’s Featured Clinical Research 1 session at 12:15 p.m. to 1:45 p.m..
 

Sunday LBCTs

Dr. Drachman highlighted a series of other late-breaking studies, including the global DARE-19 trial testing the diabetes and HF drug dapagliflozin (Farxiga) given with local standard-of-care therapy for 30 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with CV, metabolic, or renal risk factors.

Although sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been white-hot of late, top-line results reported last month show dapagliflozin failed to achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoints of reducing organ dysfunction and all-cause mortality and for improving recovery. Details will be presented in the Joint ACC/JAMA Late-Breaking Clinical Trials II (Sunday, May 16, 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m.).

Two trials, FLOWER-MI and RADIANCE-HTN TRIO, were singled out in the Joint ACC/New England Journal of Medicine Late-Breaking Clinical Trials III (Sunday, May 16, 10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m.). FLOWER-MI examines whether fractional flow reserve (FFR) is better than angiography to guide complete multivessel revascularization in ST-elevation MI patients with at least 50% stenosis in at least one nonculprit lesion requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies have shown the superiority of FFR-guided PCI for nonculprit lesions, compared with culprit lesion treatment-only, but this is the first time FFR- and angiography-guided PCI have been compared in STEMI patients.

RADIANCE-HTN TRIO already tipped its hand, with top-line results reported in late 2020 showing that the trial met its primary efficacy endpoint of greater reduction in daytime blood pressure over 2 months with the Paradise endovascular ultrasound renal denervation system, compared with a sham procedure, in 136 patients with resistant hypertension, importantly, after being given a single pill containing a calcium channel blocker, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and diuretic.

Renal denervation for hypertension has been making something of a comeback, with the 2018 RADIANCE-HTN SOLO reporting better ambulatory blood pressure control with the Paradise system than with a sham procedure in the absence of antihypertensive agents. The device has been granted breakthrough device designation from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertensive patients who are unable to sufficiently respond to or are intolerant of antihypertensive therapy.
 

Monday LBCTs

In the Late-Breaking Clinical Trials IV session (Monday, May 17, 8 a.m.–9:30 a.m.), Drachman called out a secondary analysis from GALATIC-HF looking at the impact of EF on the therapeutic effect of omecamtiv mecarbil. In last year’s primary analysis, the selective cardiac myosin activator produced a modest but significant reduction in HF events or CV death in 8,232 patients with HF and an EF of 35% or less.

Rounding out the list is the Canadian CAPITAL CHILL study of moderate versus mild therapeutic hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, to be presented in the final Late-Breaking Clinical Trials V session (Monday, May 17, 10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.).

The double-blind trial sought to determine whether neurologic outcomes at 6 months are improved by targeting a core temperature of 31 ˚C versus 34 ˚C after the return of spontaneous circulation in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“For me, I think this could really change practice and has personal relevance from experience with cardiac arrest survivors that I’ve known and care for very deeply,” Dr. Drachman said in an interview. “I think that there’s a lot of opportunity here as well.”

Asked what other trials have the potential to change practice, Dr. Drachman said FLOWER-MI holds particular interest because it looks at how to manage patients with STEMI with multiple lesions at the point of care.

“We’ve gained a lot of clarity from several other prior clinical trials, but this will help to answer the question in a slightly different way of saying: can you eyeball it, can you look at the angiogram and say whether or not that other, nonculprit lesion ought to be treated in the same hospitalization or should you really be using a pressure wire,” he said. “For me as an interventionalist, this is really important because when you finish up doing an intervention on a patient it might be the middle of the night and the patient may be more or less stable, but you’ve already exposed them to the risk of a procedure, should you then move on and do another aspect of the procedure to interrogate with a pressure wire a remaining narrowing? I think that’s very important; that’ll help me make decisions on a day-to-day basis.”

Dr. Drachman also cited RADIANCE-HTN TRIO because it employs an endovascular technique to control blood pressure in patients with hypertension, specifically those resistant to multiple drugs.

During the press conference, Dr. Morris, a preventive cardiologist, put her money on the ADAPTABLE study of aspirin dosing, reiterating that the unique trial design could inform future research, and on Sunday’s 8:45 a.m. late-breaking post hoc analysis from the STRENGTH trial that looks to pick up where the controversy over omega-3 fatty acid preparations left off at last year’s American Heart Association meeting.

A lack of benefit on CV event rates reported with Epanova, a high-dose combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid, led to a contentious debate over how to reconcile STRENGTH with the findings from REDUCE-IT, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major CV events with the EPA product icosapent ethyl (Vascepa).

STRENGTH investigator Steven Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, and REDUCE-IT investigator and session panelist Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, will share the virtual stage at ACC 2021, but Dr. Morris said the “good news” is both researchers know one another very well and “will really be focusing on no political issues, just the omega-3 fatty levels in the bloodstream and what does that mean in either trial.

“This is not designed to be a debate, point counterpoint,” she added.

For that, as all cardiologists and journalists know, there will be the wild and woolly #CardioTwitter sphere.

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

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.
 

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.
 

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.