Cardiology News

PHILADELPHIA – An investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that can be injected every 1-3 months as add-on therapy for patients with stubbornly high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has demonstrated cholesterol lowering for up to a year, in a clinical trial.

The results are from the phase 3 Recaticimab Add-On Therapy in Patients With Non-Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Mixed Hyperlipidemia (REMAIN-2) trial.

“It’s a new antibody that has a long half-life so each treatment can be prolonged,” investigator Xin Du, MD, professor of cardiology at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and the Capital Medical University, said in an interview. “Previous drugs like alirocumab and evolocumab have to be given every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, and this new drug can be given even every 12 weeks, so it can get a very strong effect of LDL cholesterol lowering even when given every 3 months.”

Recaticimab has demonstrated a half-life of 18.6 to 27.4 days vs. 11 to 17 days for alirocumab and evolocumab, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Currently a high proportion of patients prescribed the PCSK9 inhibitors withdraw from therapy,” Dr. Du said. “After 36 months, only half of them are still on that therapy.”

Dr. Du presented the trial results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

Trial design and results

REMAIN-2 randomly assigned 692 patients to one of three recaticimab dosing arms vs. placebo: 150 mg/kg every 4 weeks; 300 mg/kg every 8 weeks; and 450 mg/kg every 12 weeks. The study was conducted from June 2021 to March 2023. The average age of the participants was 56 years and 64% were men. A high percentage of patients, 87% to 93.5%, completed the study across all groups. All participants had high LDL-C levels despite statin therapy: ≥ 70 mg/dL for those with cardiovascular disease and ≥ 100 mg/dL for those without.

Recaticimab enhanced LDL-C reduction by 53.4% to 62% vs. placebo at 24 weeks with a similar effect across all dosing regimens, Dr. Du said. That level of reduction was sustained out to 48 weeks, she said, at 48.4% to 64%.

At week 24, 86% to 94.5% of all patients across the three dosing arms achieved their LDL-C goal. The treatment had a positive impact on other lipid levels as well, Dr. Du said. Levels of non-HDL-C declined 55% to 47%. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels fell 53% to 42% and lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a) readings declined 39.5% to 29%. The placebo arms had no change or small increases in non-HDL-C and ApoB levels and modest reductions in Lp(a).

The trial demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability of recaticimab, Dr. Du said. At 48 weeks, the rates of injection site reactions were 3.9% in the treatment arms vs. 1.3% in the placebo arms. Common adverse events with a frequency ≥ 5% in patients receiving recaticimab were upper respiratory tract infection, hyperuricemia, urinary tract infection, increased blood creatine phosphokinase – a marker of damage to the heart – COVID-19 infection, and increased alanine transferase and aspartate transferase, both of which are markers of liver damage.
 

Larger, longer studies needed

Longer-term studies of recaticimab are still needed to determine its ability produce durable LDL-C reduction in a cost-effective manner, said discussant Stephen Nicholls, MD, director of Victorian Heart Institute and professor at Monash University in Australia. “It is important to note that these are still relatively short studies and the short treatment period cannot exclude the formation of neutralizing antibodies that have undermined development of other humanized antibodies,” he told attendees.

Victorian Heart Institute

The every-12-week dosing, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview, “provides a dosing regimen that may be palatable to many patients.”

Besides the potential for the development of antibodies, Dr. Nicholls foresaw potential challenges with recaticimab. “The reality will lie in longer-term data,” he said. “If they can achieve durable lipid lowering without such neutralizing antibodies that would be very good.”

Dr. Nicholls added, “There’s a lot going on in the PCSK9 inhibitor space and the challenge for any new therapeutic, including this one, is where will it fit in given the space is getting crowded. So, data is important and clinical uptake will be equally important.”

Dr. Du disclosed relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Nicholls disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Anthera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerenis, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis,  LipoScience, The Medicines Company, Merck, New Amsterdam Pharma, Omthera, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Takeda, Vaxxinity, and Seqirus.

PHILADELPHIA – An investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that can be injected every 1-3 months as add-on therapy for patients with stubbornly high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has demonstrated cholesterol lowering for up to a year, in a clinical trial.

The results are from the phase 3 Recaticimab Add-On Therapy in Patients With Non-Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Mixed Hyperlipidemia (REMAIN-2) trial.

“It’s a new antibody that has a long half-life so each treatment can be prolonged,” investigator Xin Du, MD, professor of cardiology at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and the Capital Medical University, said in an interview. “Previous drugs like alirocumab and evolocumab have to be given every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, and this new drug can be given even every 12 weeks, so it can get a very strong effect of LDL cholesterol lowering even when given every 3 months.”

Recaticimab has demonstrated a half-life of 18.6 to 27.4 days vs. 11 to 17 days for alirocumab and evolocumab, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Currently a high proportion of patients prescribed the PCSK9 inhibitors withdraw from therapy,” Dr. Du said. “After 36 months, only half of them are still on that therapy.”

Dr. Du presented the trial results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

Trial design and results

REMAIN-2 randomly assigned 692 patients to one of three recaticimab dosing arms vs. placebo: 150 mg/kg every 4 weeks; 300 mg/kg every 8 weeks; and 450 mg/kg every 12 weeks. The study was conducted from June 2021 to March 2023. The average age of the participants was 56 years and 64% were men. A high percentage of patients, 87% to 93.5%, completed the study across all groups. All participants had high LDL-C levels despite statin therapy: ≥ 70 mg/dL for those with cardiovascular disease and ≥ 100 mg/dL for those without.

Recaticimab enhanced LDL-C reduction by 53.4% to 62% vs. placebo at 24 weeks with a similar effect across all dosing regimens, Dr. Du said. That level of reduction was sustained out to 48 weeks, she said, at 48.4% to 64%.

At week 24, 86% to 94.5% of all patients across the three dosing arms achieved their LDL-C goal. The treatment had a positive impact on other lipid levels as well, Dr. Du said. Levels of non-HDL-C declined 55% to 47%. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels fell 53% to 42% and lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a) readings declined 39.5% to 29%. The placebo arms had no change or small increases in non-HDL-C and ApoB levels and modest reductions in Lp(a).

The trial demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability of recaticimab, Dr. Du said. At 48 weeks, the rates of injection site reactions were 3.9% in the treatment arms vs. 1.3% in the placebo arms. Common adverse events with a frequency ≥ 5% in patients receiving recaticimab were upper respiratory tract infection, hyperuricemia, urinary tract infection, increased blood creatine phosphokinase – a marker of damage to the heart – COVID-19 infection, and increased alanine transferase and aspartate transferase, both of which are markers of liver damage.
 

Larger, longer studies needed

Longer-term studies of recaticimab are still needed to determine its ability produce durable LDL-C reduction in a cost-effective manner, said discussant Stephen Nicholls, MD, director of Victorian Heart Institute and professor at Monash University in Australia. “It is important to note that these are still relatively short studies and the short treatment period cannot exclude the formation of neutralizing antibodies that have undermined development of other humanized antibodies,” he told attendees.

Victorian Heart Institute

The every-12-week dosing, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview, “provides a dosing regimen that may be palatable to many patients.”

Besides the potential for the development of antibodies, Dr. Nicholls foresaw potential challenges with recaticimab. “The reality will lie in longer-term data,” he said. “If they can achieve durable lipid lowering without such neutralizing antibodies that would be very good.”

Dr. Nicholls added, “There’s a lot going on in the PCSK9 inhibitor space and the challenge for any new therapeutic, including this one, is where will it fit in given the space is getting crowded. So, data is important and clinical uptake will be equally important.”

Dr. Du disclosed relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Nicholls disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Anthera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerenis, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis,  LipoScience, The Medicines Company, Merck, New Amsterdam Pharma, Omthera, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Takeda, Vaxxinity, and Seqirus.

PHILADELPHIA – An investigational PCSK9 inhibitor that can be injected every 1-3 months as add-on therapy for patients with stubbornly high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol has demonstrated cholesterol lowering for up to a year, in a clinical trial.

The results are from the phase 3 Recaticimab Add-On Therapy in Patients With Non-Familial Hypercholesterolemia and Mixed Hyperlipidemia (REMAIN-2) trial.

“It’s a new antibody that has a long half-life so each treatment can be prolonged,” investigator Xin Du, MD, professor of cardiology at Beijing Anzhen Hospital and the Capital Medical University, said in an interview. “Previous drugs like alirocumab and evolocumab have to be given every 2 weeks or every 4 weeks, and this new drug can be given even every 12 weeks, so it can get a very strong effect of LDL cholesterol lowering even when given every 3 months.”

Recaticimab has demonstrated a half-life of 18.6 to 27.4 days vs. 11 to 17 days for alirocumab and evolocumab, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

“Currently a high proportion of patients prescribed the PCSK9 inhibitors withdraw from therapy,” Dr. Du said. “After 36 months, only half of them are still on that therapy.”

Dr. Du presented the trial results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.
 

Trial design and results

REMAIN-2 randomly assigned 692 patients to one of three recaticimab dosing arms vs. placebo: 150 mg/kg every 4 weeks; 300 mg/kg every 8 weeks; and 450 mg/kg every 12 weeks. The study was conducted from June 2021 to March 2023. The average age of the participants was 56 years and 64% were men. A high percentage of patients, 87% to 93.5%, completed the study across all groups. All participants had high LDL-C levels despite statin therapy: ≥ 70 mg/dL for those with cardiovascular disease and ≥ 100 mg/dL for those without.

Recaticimab enhanced LDL-C reduction by 53.4% to 62% vs. placebo at 24 weeks with a similar effect across all dosing regimens, Dr. Du said. That level of reduction was sustained out to 48 weeks, she said, at 48.4% to 64%.

At week 24, 86% to 94.5% of all patients across the three dosing arms achieved their LDL-C goal. The treatment had a positive impact on other lipid levels as well, Dr. Du said. Levels of non-HDL-C declined 55% to 47%. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels fell 53% to 42% and lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a) readings declined 39.5% to 29%. The placebo arms had no change or small increases in non-HDL-C and ApoB levels and modest reductions in Lp(a).

The trial demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability of recaticimab, Dr. Du said. At 48 weeks, the rates of injection site reactions were 3.9% in the treatment arms vs. 1.3% in the placebo arms. Common adverse events with a frequency ≥ 5% in patients receiving recaticimab were upper respiratory tract infection, hyperuricemia, urinary tract infection, increased blood creatine phosphokinase – a marker of damage to the heart – COVID-19 infection, and increased alanine transferase and aspartate transferase, both of which are markers of liver damage.
 

Larger, longer studies needed

Longer-term studies of recaticimab are still needed to determine its ability produce durable LDL-C reduction in a cost-effective manner, said discussant Stephen Nicholls, MD, director of Victorian Heart Institute and professor at Monash University in Australia. “It is important to note that these are still relatively short studies and the short treatment period cannot exclude the formation of neutralizing antibodies that have undermined development of other humanized antibodies,” he told attendees.

Victorian Heart Institute

The every-12-week dosing, Dr. Nicholls said in an interview, “provides a dosing regimen that may be palatable to many patients.”

Besides the potential for the development of antibodies, Dr. Nicholls foresaw potential challenges with recaticimab. “The reality will lie in longer-term data,” he said. “If they can achieve durable lipid lowering without such neutralizing antibodies that would be very good.”

Dr. Nicholls added, “There’s a lot going on in the PCSK9 inhibitor space and the challenge for any new therapeutic, including this one, is where will it fit in given the space is getting crowded. So, data is important and clinical uptake will be equally important.”

Dr. Du disclosed relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca and Bayer. Dr. Nicholls disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Akcea, Amarin, Amgen, Anthera, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerenis, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis,  LipoScience, The Medicines Company, Merck, New Amsterdam Pharma, Omthera, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, Takeda, Vaxxinity, and Seqirus.

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Bariatric surgery continues to play a major role in obesity management despite the emergence of potent new weight-loss medications, according to two experts who spoke at an Endocrine Society science writers briefing.

“Bariatric surgery is safe, effective, and unfortunately underutilized for treating obesity and its complications,” said Jaime Almandoz, MD, medical director of the Weight Wellness Program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Added Dr. Almandoz, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, endocrinology, and obesity medicine, “Sometimes this gets presented in a linear fashion. ‘We’ll try lifestyle first, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try medications, and if that doesn’t work, we’ll try surgery.’ But sometimes we might need to go straight to surgery instead of going through medications first, because it may be the most effective and evidence-based treatment for the person in the office in front of you.”

Moreover, he pointed out that currently, Medicare and many private insurers don’t cover antiobesity medications but do cover bariatric surgery.

Indeed, Srividya Kidambi, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology and molecular medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin/Froedtert Hospital, Milwaukee, said there are certain types of patients for whom she might consider bariatric surgery first. One would be a person with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m² or with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and severe comorbidities.

Another, she said, would be young, relatively healthy people with obesity who have no comorbid conditions. “We know that if we stop the medication, the weight comes back. So, if I see a 20- to 25-year-old, am I really to commit them to lifelong therapy, or is bariatric surgery a better option in these cases? These drugs have not been around that long ... so I tend to recommend bariatric surgery in some patients.”

During the recent briefing, Dr. Almandoz summarized the evidence base for the benefits of bariatric surgery beyond weight loss, which include remission of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, reduction of the risks of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and increased life expectancy.

“Everyone seems to be talking about GLP-1s for facilitating weight loss and treating obesity. ... What I want to do is provide a counterpoint to accessible therapies that are covered by more insurance plans and that may, in fact, have a better evidence base for treating obesity and its related complications,” he said in his introduction.

Bariatric surgery has been used for decades, and many centers of excellence perform it, with greatly reduced complication rates seen today than in the past. “It’s comparable to having a gallbladder surgery in terms of perioperative risk,” he noted.

Medicare and private insurers generally cover bariatric surgery for people with BMI greater than 40 kg/m2 or 35-39 kg/m² and at least one weight-related comorbidity, including type 2 diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, atherosclerotic disease, hyperlipidemia, and fatty liver disease.

Data suggest that weight reduction of about 3% can lead to meaningful reductions in blood glucose and triglyceride levels, but weight loss of 15% or greater is associated with reductions in cardiovascular events and type 2 diabetes remission. Lifestyle modification typically produces about 5% weight loss, compared with 20%-35% with bariatric surgery with sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass.

Older weight loss medications produced weight loss of 5%-10%; only the newer medications, semaglutide 2.4 mg and tirzepatide, come close to that. Weight loss with semaglutide is about 15%, while tirzepatide can produce weight loss of up to 22%. But, there are still issues with affordability, access, and lack of coverage, Dr. Almandoz noted.

One recent randomized trial of more than 400 individuals showed that bariatric surgery was more effective than lifestyle and medical therapies for treating metabolic-associated steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis.

Another showed that the surgery was associated with fewer major adverse liver outcomes among people who already had MASH. That same study showed a 70% reduction in cardiovascular events with bariatric surgery.

For patients with type 2 diabetes, numerous trials have demonstrated long-term remission and reduced A1c at 5 years and 10 years post surgery, along with reductions in microvascular and macrovascular complications.

Other data suggest that a shorter history of type 2 diabetes is among the factors predicting remission with bariatric surgery. “Oftentimes, both patients and providers will wait until the diabetes is quite advanced before they even have the conversation about weight loss or even bariatric surgery. This suggests that if we intervene earlier in the course of disease, when it is less severe and less advanced, we have a higher rate of causing remission in the diabetes,” Dr. Almandoz said.

The American Diabetes Association’s Standards of Care incorporate bariatric surgery as either “recommended” or “may be considered” to treat type 2 diabetes, depending on BMI level, for those who don’t achieve durable weight loss with nonsurgical methods, he noted.

A retrospective cohort study showed significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes with bariatric surgery among people with baseline cardiovascular disease. “This is not just about bariatric surgery to cause weight loss. This is about the multitude of effects that happen when we treat obesity as a disease with highly effective therapies such as surgery,” he said.

Even cancer risk and cancer-related mortality were significantly reduced with bariatric surgery, another study found.

And in the long-term Swedish Obese Subjects Study, among people with obesity, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-year increase in life expectancy, compared with not undergoing surgery.

However, Dr. Almandoz also pointed out that some patients may benefit from both weight-loss medication and bariatric surgery. “Once someone has undergone pharmacotherapy, there may still be a role for bariatric procedures in helping to optimize body weight and control body weight long term. And likewise for those who have undergone bariatric surgery, there’s also a role for pharmacotherapy in terms of treating insufficient weight loss or weight recurrence after bariatric surgery. ... So I think there’s clearly a role for integration of therapies.”

Dr. Almandoz serves as consultant/advisory board member for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Kidambi is director of TOPS Center for Metabolic Research and is medical editor of TOPS Magazine, for which her institution receives an honorarium.

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

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Longer cumulative use of medication to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with a small, but statistically significant, increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), results of a large Swedish nested case-control study suggest.

The increased risk was evident only for hypertension and arterial disease, was dose dependent, and was higher for stimulant than nonstimulant ADHD medications.

“Clinicians should be vigilant in monitoring signs and symptoms of cardiovascular diseases, particularly among those receiving higher doses,” Zheng Chang, PhD, principal researcher, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, said in an interview.

“Treatment decisions, as always, should be based on careful weighing of potential benefits and risks at individual patient level, rather than simple one-size-fits-all recommendations,” Dr. Chang added.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry

Filling in the research gaps

The use of medications to treat ADHD has increased markedly over the past decades in both children and adults. The potential risk for CVD associated with long-term ADHD medication use remains unclear. Most “longitudinal” studies that have looked at the association have an average follow-up time of no more than 2 years, the authors note.

In contrast, the Swedish study assessed the association between cumulative use of ADHD medication in children and adults followed for up to 14 years and also looked at whether associations differ across types of medication and dosages, types of CVD, gender, and age.

Among 278,027 individuals aged 6-64 years diagnosed with ADHD or dispensed ADHD medication, 10,388 with CVD were identified and matched to 51,672 controls without CVD.

Longer cumulative duration of ADHD medication use was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for CVD, compared with no use.

When the risk for specific CVDs was examined, long-term use of ADHD medication (compared with no use) was associated with an increased risk for hypertension and arterial disease but not arrhythmias, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, thromboembolic disease, or cerebrovascular disease.

For hypertension, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.72 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-1.97) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.55-2.08) for > 5 years of medication use. For arterial disease, the AOR was 1.65 (95% CI, 1.11-2.45) for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.49 (95% CI, 0.96-2.32) for > 5 years of use.
 

Stimulants confer greatest risk

Across the 14-year follow-up period, each additional year of ADHD medication use was associated with an average 4% increased CVD risk, with a larger 8% increased risk in the first 3 years of cumulative use, followed by stable risk over the remaining follow-up.

Similar risks were observed in children and adults, as well as in females and males.

When focusing on specific ADHD medications, compared with no use, long-term use of the stimulant methylphenidate was associated with an increased risk for CVD (AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.10-1.31] for 3 to ≤ 5 years and 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31] for > 5 years).

The same was true for long-term use of the stimulant lisdexamfetamine (AOR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.05-1.44] for 2 to ≤ 3 years and 1.17 [95% CI, 0.98-1.40] for > 3 years).

In contrast, use of the nonstimulant atomoxetine was associated with elevated CVD risk only for the first year of use (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13).

The increased risk for CVD occurred only above certain average daily doses: 45 mg for methylphenidate and lisdexamfetamine, 22.5 mg for amphetamines, and 120 mg for atomoxetine.

The authors note that, although they accounted for a wide range of potential confounding variables, considering the observational nature of the study and the possibility of residual confounding, they could not prove causality.

‘Tricky trade-offs’

The coauthors of an editorial in JAMA Psychiatry (2023 Nov 22. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2023.4126) note that the study “should remind us that clinical decision-making is often based on tricky trade-offs that should be considered at the individual patient level.”

Given that hypertension is the leading cause of CV morbidity and mortality worldwide, the increased likelihood of hypertension with long-term use of ADHD medications “cannot be disregarded,” write Samuele Cortese, MD, PhD, and Cristiano Fava, MD, PhD, with University of Southampton (England).

“These findings are especially relevant given the reported association between ADHD and physical conditions, such as obesity, which further contribute to increased cardiovascular risk,” they add.

Dr. Cortese and Dr. Fava say that the increased CV risk – averaging 4% per year and stabilizing after 3 years of treatment – “should be carefully weighed against the established benefits, on a case-by-case basis.”

“Importantly,” they write, “large real-world self-controlled studies have shown that individuals with ADHD experience significantly fewer unintentional physical injuries, motor vehicle crashes, substance use disorders, and criminal acts, as well as improved academic functioning, during periods when they are taking, compared with periods when they are not taking, methylphenidate.”

The risk-benefit ratio, however, may be lower in people with preexisting heart conditions. However, more evidence and precise recommendations are needed in relation to the treatment of individuals with ADHD and preexisting CV conditions, the editorial writers say.

This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program. The authors and editorial writers have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With the help of artificial intelligence (AI), arterial inflammation measured with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) can predict fatal and nonfatal events in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a study that suggests this approach would change treatment about half the time.

In patients with nonobstructive CAD, CCTA measurement of inflammation on the basis of the Fat Attenuation Index (FAI) “predicts fatal and nonfatal cardiac events independently from clinical risk scores and routine CCTA interpretation,” reported Charalambos Antoniades, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford, England.

This analysis was based on data from ORFAN, an ongoing study that expects to eventually collect data from 250,000 CCTA. There were multiple goals. The first was to evaluate whether there is a need and a role of CCTA to risk stratify patients without obstructive CAD. A second objective was to evaluate if the FAI inflammation score can quantify residual risk in these patients.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Based on the answers to these questions, the investigators then proceeded to determine if an AI risk model that combines data from the FAI score and risk factors is widely generalizable and, in addition, whether it reclassifies patients in a way meaningful to management.
 

CCTA-based inflammation is promising

The answers to all these questions were yes, according to data presented by Dr. Antoniades in a late-breaker at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

So far, ORPHAN, which has multiple participating sites in the United Kingdom, Europe, United States, South America, Asia, and Australia, have data on more than 100,000 CCTAs. Approximately 40,000 have been processed. Of these, 82% have had nonobstructive CAD and the remaining obstructive disease.

In long-term follow-up, the numbers of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiac deaths were compared in these two groups. In absolute terms, the nonobstructive CAD group had about twice as many MACE (2,587 vs. 1,450) and cardiac deaths (1,118 vs. 636).

The rate of these events was much lower in the nonobstructive group , which had four times more patients than the obstructive group, but Dr. Antoniades said these data demonstrate substantial rates of events in the nonobstructive group as well as an unmet need to identify and treat risk associated with nonobstructive CAD.

When determining if coronary inflammation as measured with CCTA could be a means identifying risk independent of other factors, the FAI scores were evaluated by quartile in a nested cohort of 3,666 consecutive patients. FAI, which has been validated, is calculated with spatial changes in CCTA-measured perivascular fat composition after standardization for anatomy and other variables.

The discrimination for risk with FAI was impressive. When evaluated across all patients (obstructive or nonobstructive CAD), those in the highest FAI quartile had a hazard ratio (HR) for MACE that was more than six times higher (HR 6.76; P < .001) and a risk of cardiac mortality that was more than 20 times higher (HR 20.20; P < .001) than that of those in the first quartile.

“The prediction was independent of all other risk factors,” Dr. Antoniades reported.
 

Predictive value greater in nonobstructive CAD

When evaluated in nonobstructive disease, the predictive value of FAI was even greater. In obstructive CAD patients, the increased risk of MACE for the fourth relative to the first quartile was increased threefold (HR 3.15; P < .001), but it was increased almost fivefold among those with nonobstructive CAD (HR 4.77; P < .001). The increases for cardiac mortality were fivefold (HR 5.15; P < .001) and more than 10-fold (HR 10.49; P < .001) in these groups, respectively.

When a risk model based on AI that incorporated FAI plus other cardiovascular risk factors was applied retrospectively to the ORPHAN data, the predicted and actual event graph lines were nearly superimposable over a follow-up to 10 years at risk levels ranging from low to very high.

When this inflammation-based AI model was evaluated against standard risk prediction in patients with nonobstructive CAD, 30% of patients were reclassified to a higher risk category and 10% to a lower risk category.

When the AI-risk calculations were provided to clinicians at four hospitals over a recent 1-year period, it resulted “in changes of management in approximately half of patients,” Dr. Antoniades said.

Overall, Dr. Antoniades said these data provide evidence that coronary inflammation is an important driver of residual risk in patients who have nonobstructive CAD on CCTA, and he believes that the AI-enhanced interpretation of the FAI-based inflammatory burden has the potential to become an important management tool.

“AI-risk assessment may transform risk stratification and management of patients undergoing routine CCTA,” Dr. Antoniades said.
 

Imaging has potential for expanded risk assessment

The AHA-invited discussant, Viviany R. Taqueti, MD, director of the cardiac stress laboratory at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with the promise of evaluating inflammatory infiltrate in the coronary arteries as well as looking at fat in other tissues, such as skeletal muscle, to better risk stratify patients, but she cautioned about the limitations of conclusions based on observational data.

“A registry is not a randomized trial,” she said.

Characterizing AI as a “black box” in terms of understanding methodology, she also recommended further studies to validate the relative contribution of AI to inflammation alone in risk stratification.

Still, she believes that the “explosive growth” in imaging has created new opportunities for more precisely evaluating cardiovascular risk. She said these might be particularly helpful in the context of the “changing landscape” in CAD driven by less smoking, more obesity, and increased statin use. Overall, she endorsed the basic questions Dr. Antoniades is exploring.

“This is an incredibly intriguing idea that deserves continuing research,” she said.

Dr. Antoniades reported financial relationships with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Caristo Diagnostics, Covance, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MedImmune, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Taqueti reported no potential conflicts of interest.

With the help of artificial intelligence (AI), arterial inflammation measured with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) can predict fatal and nonfatal events in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a study that suggests this approach would change treatment about half the time.

In patients with nonobstructive CAD, CCTA measurement of inflammation on the basis of the Fat Attenuation Index (FAI) “predicts fatal and nonfatal cardiac events independently from clinical risk scores and routine CCTA interpretation,” reported Charalambos Antoniades, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford, England.

This analysis was based on data from ORFAN, an ongoing study that expects to eventually collect data from 250,000 CCTA. There were multiple goals. The first was to evaluate whether there is a need and a role of CCTA to risk stratify patients without obstructive CAD. A second objective was to evaluate if the FAI inflammation score can quantify residual risk in these patients.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Based on the answers to these questions, the investigators then proceeded to determine if an AI risk model that combines data from the FAI score and risk factors is widely generalizable and, in addition, whether it reclassifies patients in a way meaningful to management.
 

CCTA-based inflammation is promising

The answers to all these questions were yes, according to data presented by Dr. Antoniades in a late-breaker at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

So far, ORPHAN, which has multiple participating sites in the United Kingdom, Europe, United States, South America, Asia, and Australia, have data on more than 100,000 CCTAs. Approximately 40,000 have been processed. Of these, 82% have had nonobstructive CAD and the remaining obstructive disease.

In long-term follow-up, the numbers of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiac deaths were compared in these two groups. In absolute terms, the nonobstructive CAD group had about twice as many MACE (2,587 vs. 1,450) and cardiac deaths (1,118 vs. 636).

The rate of these events was much lower in the nonobstructive group , which had four times more patients than the obstructive group, but Dr. Antoniades said these data demonstrate substantial rates of events in the nonobstructive group as well as an unmet need to identify and treat risk associated with nonobstructive CAD.

When determining if coronary inflammation as measured with CCTA could be a means identifying risk independent of other factors, the FAI scores were evaluated by quartile in a nested cohort of 3,666 consecutive patients. FAI, which has been validated, is calculated with spatial changes in CCTA-measured perivascular fat composition after standardization for anatomy and other variables.

The discrimination for risk with FAI was impressive. When evaluated across all patients (obstructive or nonobstructive CAD), those in the highest FAI quartile had a hazard ratio (HR) for MACE that was more than six times higher (HR 6.76; P < .001) and a risk of cardiac mortality that was more than 20 times higher (HR 20.20; P < .001) than that of those in the first quartile.

“The prediction was independent of all other risk factors,” Dr. Antoniades reported.
 

Predictive value greater in nonobstructive CAD

When evaluated in nonobstructive disease, the predictive value of FAI was even greater. In obstructive CAD patients, the increased risk of MACE for the fourth relative to the first quartile was increased threefold (HR 3.15; P < .001), but it was increased almost fivefold among those with nonobstructive CAD (HR 4.77; P < .001). The increases for cardiac mortality were fivefold (HR 5.15; P < .001) and more than 10-fold (HR 10.49; P < .001) in these groups, respectively.

When a risk model based on AI that incorporated FAI plus other cardiovascular risk factors was applied retrospectively to the ORPHAN data, the predicted and actual event graph lines were nearly superimposable over a follow-up to 10 years at risk levels ranging from low to very high.

When this inflammation-based AI model was evaluated against standard risk prediction in patients with nonobstructive CAD, 30% of patients were reclassified to a higher risk category and 10% to a lower risk category.

When the AI-risk calculations were provided to clinicians at four hospitals over a recent 1-year period, it resulted “in changes of management in approximately half of patients,” Dr. Antoniades said.

Overall, Dr. Antoniades said these data provide evidence that coronary inflammation is an important driver of residual risk in patients who have nonobstructive CAD on CCTA, and he believes that the AI-enhanced interpretation of the FAI-based inflammatory burden has the potential to become an important management tool.

“AI-risk assessment may transform risk stratification and management of patients undergoing routine CCTA,” Dr. Antoniades said.
 

Imaging has potential for expanded risk assessment

The AHA-invited discussant, Viviany R. Taqueti, MD, director of the cardiac stress laboratory at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with the promise of evaluating inflammatory infiltrate in the coronary arteries as well as looking at fat in other tissues, such as skeletal muscle, to better risk stratify patients, but she cautioned about the limitations of conclusions based on observational data.

“A registry is not a randomized trial,” she said.

Characterizing AI as a “black box” in terms of understanding methodology, she also recommended further studies to validate the relative contribution of AI to inflammation alone in risk stratification.

Still, she believes that the “explosive growth” in imaging has created new opportunities for more precisely evaluating cardiovascular risk. She said these might be particularly helpful in the context of the “changing landscape” in CAD driven by less smoking, more obesity, and increased statin use. Overall, she endorsed the basic questions Dr. Antoniades is exploring.

“This is an incredibly intriguing idea that deserves continuing research,” she said.

Dr. Antoniades reported financial relationships with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Caristo Diagnostics, Covance, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MedImmune, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Taqueti reported no potential conflicts of interest.

With the help of artificial intelligence (AI), arterial inflammation measured with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) can predict fatal and nonfatal events in patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), according to a study that suggests this approach would change treatment about half the time.

In patients with nonobstructive CAD, CCTA measurement of inflammation on the basis of the Fat Attenuation Index (FAI) “predicts fatal and nonfatal cardiac events independently from clinical risk scores and routine CCTA interpretation,” reported Charalambos Antoniades, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford, England.

This analysis was based on data from ORFAN, an ongoing study that expects to eventually collect data from 250,000 CCTA. There were multiple goals. The first was to evaluate whether there is a need and a role of CCTA to risk stratify patients without obstructive CAD. A second objective was to evaluate if the FAI inflammation score can quantify residual risk in these patients.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Based on the answers to these questions, the investigators then proceeded to determine if an AI risk model that combines data from the FAI score and risk factors is widely generalizable and, in addition, whether it reclassifies patients in a way meaningful to management.
 

CCTA-based inflammation is promising

The answers to all these questions were yes, according to data presented by Dr. Antoniades in a late-breaker at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

So far, ORPHAN, which has multiple participating sites in the United Kingdom, Europe, United States, South America, Asia, and Australia, have data on more than 100,000 CCTAs. Approximately 40,000 have been processed. Of these, 82% have had nonobstructive CAD and the remaining obstructive disease.

In long-term follow-up, the numbers of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiac deaths were compared in these two groups. In absolute terms, the nonobstructive CAD group had about twice as many MACE (2,587 vs. 1,450) and cardiac deaths (1,118 vs. 636).

The rate of these events was much lower in the nonobstructive group , which had four times more patients than the obstructive group, but Dr. Antoniades said these data demonstrate substantial rates of events in the nonobstructive group as well as an unmet need to identify and treat risk associated with nonobstructive CAD.

When determining if coronary inflammation as measured with CCTA could be a means identifying risk independent of other factors, the FAI scores were evaluated by quartile in a nested cohort of 3,666 consecutive patients. FAI, which has been validated, is calculated with spatial changes in CCTA-measured perivascular fat composition after standardization for anatomy and other variables.

The discrimination for risk with FAI was impressive. When evaluated across all patients (obstructive or nonobstructive CAD), those in the highest FAI quartile had a hazard ratio (HR) for MACE that was more than six times higher (HR 6.76; P < .001) and a risk of cardiac mortality that was more than 20 times higher (HR 20.20; P < .001) than that of those in the first quartile.

“The prediction was independent of all other risk factors,” Dr. Antoniades reported.
 

Predictive value greater in nonobstructive CAD

When evaluated in nonobstructive disease, the predictive value of FAI was even greater. In obstructive CAD patients, the increased risk of MACE for the fourth relative to the first quartile was increased threefold (HR 3.15; P < .001), but it was increased almost fivefold among those with nonobstructive CAD (HR 4.77; P < .001). The increases for cardiac mortality were fivefold (HR 5.15; P < .001) and more than 10-fold (HR 10.49; P < .001) in these groups, respectively.

When a risk model based on AI that incorporated FAI plus other cardiovascular risk factors was applied retrospectively to the ORPHAN data, the predicted and actual event graph lines were nearly superimposable over a follow-up to 10 years at risk levels ranging from low to very high.

When this inflammation-based AI model was evaluated against standard risk prediction in patients with nonobstructive CAD, 30% of patients were reclassified to a higher risk category and 10% to a lower risk category.

When the AI-risk calculations were provided to clinicians at four hospitals over a recent 1-year period, it resulted “in changes of management in approximately half of patients,” Dr. Antoniades said.

Overall, Dr. Antoniades said these data provide evidence that coronary inflammation is an important driver of residual risk in patients who have nonobstructive CAD on CCTA, and he believes that the AI-enhanced interpretation of the FAI-based inflammatory burden has the potential to become an important management tool.

“AI-risk assessment may transform risk stratification and management of patients undergoing routine CCTA,” Dr. Antoniades said.
 

Imaging has potential for expanded risk assessment

The AHA-invited discussant, Viviany R. Taqueti, MD, director of the cardiac stress laboratory at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed with the promise of evaluating inflammatory infiltrate in the coronary arteries as well as looking at fat in other tissues, such as skeletal muscle, to better risk stratify patients, but she cautioned about the limitations of conclusions based on observational data.

“A registry is not a randomized trial,” she said.

Characterizing AI as a “black box” in terms of understanding methodology, she also recommended further studies to validate the relative contribution of AI to inflammation alone in risk stratification.

Still, she believes that the “explosive growth” in imaging has created new opportunities for more precisely evaluating cardiovascular risk. She said these might be particularly helpful in the context of the “changing landscape” in CAD driven by less smoking, more obesity, and increased statin use. Overall, she endorsed the basic questions Dr. Antoniades is exploring.

“This is an incredibly intriguing idea that deserves continuing research,” she said.

Dr. Antoniades reported financial relationships with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Caristo Diagnostics, Covance, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MedImmune, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr. Taqueti reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening with a “smart,” artificial-intelligence (AI)–enhanced investigational digital stethoscope (Eko Duo) that provides phonocardiogram and electrocardiogram (ECG) readings doubled the detection of peripartum cardiomyopathy in a large study of obstetric patients in Nigeria.

Demilade A. Adedinsewo, MD, MPH, from Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., reported these findings from the Screening for Pregnancy Related Heart Failure in Nigeria (SPEC-AI Nigeria) trial in a press briefing and in a late-breaking trial session at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

“The key takeaway,” Dr. Adedinsewo said in an interview, “is recognizing that a simple, low-impact tool like a digital stethoscope can dramatically improve the diagnosis of a life-threatening condition, and we can treat it. A large proportion of the women will recover; if we identify them early and treat them appropriately, we can reduce the risk of dying.”

If the device predicted low ejection fraction, the patient went on to have an echocardiogram to confirm cardiomyopathy, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy was detected in 4% of the women who were screened with this tool, compared with 1.8% of those who received usual care, which included a traditional ECG.

“I believe that the control arm also has about 4% of cardiomyopathy cases, but because they didn’t have the same screening and echo, we’re missing them,” Dr. Adedinsewo said.

Diagnosis of peripartum cardiomyopathy is challenging, she noted, owing to overlap of common symptoms in pregnancy, such as lower-extremity swelling, fatigue, and shortness of breath with mild activity, which are also cardinal symptoms of heart failure.

“We were really impressed by the effectiveness of the tool, looking at how accurate it was when it comes to the sensitivity,” she added. She noted that the digital stethoscope correctly identified 92% of women with LVEF < 50% and 100% of those with LVEF < 40%.

This was the first large, clinical trial to evaluate an AI intervention in pregnancy. The investigators used a portable, battery-operated device that yielded AI results in real time.

Nigeria has the highest rate of pericardium cardiomyopathy of any country. However, one study showed a 16-fold higher rate of cardiomyopathy among African American women, compared with White women in the United States, Dr. Adedinsewo noted. “It will be important to identify who we should be screening to identify more cases,” she said.

A digital stethoscope that provides an ECG is currently available, but the algorithm that powers detection of cardiomyopathy is not yet commercially available.
 

Findings ‘absolutely startling’

The study discussant in the press briefing, Alexander Tarlochan Singh Sandhu, MD, from Stanford (Calif.) University congratulated the authors on this “valuable study that uses AI tools to solve a real health problem.”

Finding that 4% of the women in the intervention arm had reduced ejection fraction is “absolutely startling,” he said, “and speaks to how important improving our diagnosis in this space is.

“Where the burden of disease is high, a tool like this can be so incredibly valuable,” he said. He noted that the investigators identified 2% more patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy.

“This is an example of the potential of AI tools that can actually improve access to care and improve quality of care in resource-limited settings,” he said. “We need to move to understanding how to implement this into subsequent care [and] figure out what the next steps are to improve their outcomes.”

“The main takeaway is that, in areas where there is a very high prevalence of a morbid condition, a prescreening tool like this may be helpful” for diagnosis, the assigned discussant in the session, Marco Perez, MD, also from Stanford University, told this news organization.

The number of women needed to screen to detect peripartum cardiomyopathy by echocardiography alone is 1 in 23 in Nigeria and 1 in 970 in the United States, he said.

With an AI tool such as this one (sensitivity, 92%; specificity, 80%), the number needed to screen would be 1 in 5.7 in Nigeria and 1 in 194 in the United States, he estimates on the basis of incidence data.

“Because it is so common in Nigeria, a screening method makes a lot of sense,” Dr. Perez said. “The big question that remains is, what is the best screening modality?

“Certainly, this tool helped in bringing down the number of echoes needed to find a case, from the mid 20s down to about 5 or 6, so it certainly does seem to be helpful.”

However, the investigators did not say whether this tool is better than a clinical review of ECG or an AI analysis of ECG alone. It’s not clear whether the phonocardiogram component is significant in conjunction with the ECG component.

Nevertheless, “In a place where there’s a very high prevalence of peripartum cardiomyopathy, like Haiti, like Nigeria, doing something like this makes a lot of sense.

“For the U.S. and the rest of the world, where the prevalence is much lower, even with a tool like this you still would need to do a lot of echoes to find one case, and that may end up not being cost-effective. You would need to screen 200 women with echo to find one case.”
 

AI-guided screening study

Nigeria has the highest reported incidence of peripartum cardiomyopathy mortality (1 in 100 live births) and the highest number of maternal deaths.

In the United States, where rates of peripartum cardiomyopathy are much lower, maternal deaths are nevertheless higher than in other developed countries and have trended up over the past 3 decades; cardiomyopathy is a key contributor.

The investigators enrolled 1,195 women who were pregnant or had given birth in the past 12 months. The patients were from six teaching hospitals in Nigeria (two in the north and four in the south). They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (587) or the control group (608).

In the intervention group, clinicians used a smart stethoscope to record a phonocardiogram and a single-lead ECG reading in the V2 position and in an angled position on the patient’s chest wall and to record an ECG from the patient’s fingers. The recordings were sent to a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device (tablet or smartphone), which displayed the phonocardiogram and ECG images and that indicated whether the ejection fraction was normal or low. All patients in the intervention group received an echocardiogram.

In the control group, patients received usual care plus a traditional ECG. They were not required to have an echocardiogram because undergoing an echocardiogram is not part of usual care; however, they could receive an echocardiogram if the ECG suggested that they might need further testing.

The mean age of all the patients was 31 years, and all were Black. At study entry, 73% were pregnant, and 26% were post partum. They had similar comorbidities.

The primary outcome, cardiomyopathy (LVEF <50%) was detected in 24 of 587 patients (4.1%) in the intervention group and in 11 of 608 patients (1.8%) in the control group (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.8; P = .02).

For the detection of LVEF <50%, the sensitivity was 92% and the specificity was 80%. For the detection of LVEF <40% (a secondary outcome), the sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 79%.

Dr. Adedinsewo is supported by the Mayo Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health (BIRCWH) Program, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. The trial was funded by Mayo Clinic (Centers for Digital Health and Community Health and Engagement Research) and in part by the Mayo Clinic BIRCWH Program. Portable ECG, phonocardiogram recordings, and AI predictions using the digital stethoscope were extracted by the Eko Health team and were sent to the coordinating center for analysis. Eko Health had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or data interpretation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – A carefully tailored program in which physicians talked with heart failure (HF) patients about the cost of their medications improved medication adherence and the likelihood that patients get the medications they’re prescribed, results of a pilot study show.

The POCKET-COST-HF trial integrated information about patient-specific out-of-pocket (OOP) drug costs into clinical encounters between cardiologists and patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) at six clinic sites in two different health systems. Neil W. Dickert, MD, PhD, primary investigator of the trial, said OOP costs for HFrEF patients with Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage can run upwards of $2,600 a year for four-drug therapy. Dr. Dickert is a cardiologist at Emory University in Atlanta.

“The primary outcome for the study was whether patients and clinicians essentially talked about the cost of medications,” Dr. Dickert said in an interview. “The study was positive in that perspective; we saw an increase of about 19% in the encounters that had cost conversations related to heart failure medication.”

The trial, which Dr. Dickert presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, was designed to evaluate the effect of patient-specific OOP costs in the shared decision-making about heart failure medications, Dr. Dickert said.

The primary outcome was cost-informed decision-making, achieved in 68% of the intervention group encounters and 49% of control encounters (P = .021).
 

Fewer in-pharmacy adjustments

“We saw some really interesting signals of potential benefits in the space of actual decisions,” he said. “There were fewer, for example, contingency plans made in the intervention arm versus the control arm, and what that means is physicians were less likely to write a prescription and leave the decision about whether or not it’s worth it to the patient when they get to the pharmacy.”

The study intervention was a checklist of 19 heart failure medications that included OOP cost, ranging from minimal costs for generics such as diuretics and beta blockers to $617 for dapagliflozin. The checklist was based on an electronic medical records HF medications checklist. Researchers obtained drug cost estimates from TailorMed, a financial navigation company.

Six clinic sites within two health systems, one in Georgia, the other in Colorado, participated in the study. Each cluster had 40 or so patients (n = 247) randomized to the intervention or control. About two-thirds were White, a quarter were Black and 4% and 2.5% in the control and intervention group were Hispanic/LatinX. Income ranges were similar across both arms.

For the study intervention, patients got a call from the clinic 2-3 weeks before their scheduled visit to obtain verbal consent to participate and their OOP costs for drugs. The visit itself, where patients randomized to the intervention received the checklist, was audio recorded. After the visit, patients took a follow-up telephone survey, then the clinic staff did an electronic health record 3 months after the visit.

Getting the patient drug price information was not easy, Dr. Dickert said. “It required a fair amount of work and a big list to get that information that we could then populate the checklist for people,” he said. “It was a behind-the-scenes thing that is not necessarily scalable as done.”

Dr. Dickert acknowledged an increasing emphasis on price transparency in medicine, but the trade-offs are unknown. “Depending upon how that’s carried out, that can have different implications,” he said. “I’m a believer that if we think good communication has the ability to enhance medical decision-making, it also means that either bad information or bad communication can undermine.

“So, I think it’s really important to study these interventions and to do them in rigorous ways where we can really get a sense of what kind of impact they have on patients and clinicians.”
 

Study strengths and limitations

Discussant Dhruv Kazi, MD, director of the cardiac critical care unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that this study fulfills an important function in investigating how OOP costs influence medication adherence in HFrEF patients.

“The total cost of drugs has often been a focus of policy discussions,” he said. “We talk about, how do we reduce drug costs?” He noted the Inflation Reduction Act will bring some of these drug costs down.

“On the flip side,” he added, “as a community we pay less attention to out-of-pocket costs because we assume those are not in our control, yet what the patient cares about is not the total cost of the drug, but, ‘What am I going to pay this month, and what am I going to pay cumulatively over the course of the year? Can I even afford this drug?”

POCKET-COST-HF provided a sound basis for making that investigation, he said, adding that its multisite design and mixed-methods approach – patient contact before and after visits and recording of encounters – are strengths. “Just looking at the logistics involved in pulling off something like this, the study investigators deserve to be congratulated,” he said.

One limitation, Dr. Kazi said, is its exclusion of non–English speakers. Adding them in, along with testing the intervention in community, rural, and primary care settings, are future goals for the intervention, he said. Within the trial itself, examining the cost-effectiveness of the intervention would be laudable, Dr. Kazi said.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the trial. Dr. Dickert disclosed relationships with Abiomed. Dr. Kazi has no relevant relationships to disclose.

PHILADELPHIA – A carefully tailored program in which physicians talked with heart failure (HF) patients about the cost of their medications improved medication adherence and the likelihood that patients get the medications they’re prescribed, results of a pilot study show.

The POCKET-COST-HF trial integrated information about patient-specific out-of-pocket (OOP) drug costs into clinical encounters between cardiologists and patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) at six clinic sites in two different health systems. Neil W. Dickert, MD, PhD, primary investigator of the trial, said OOP costs for HFrEF patients with Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage can run upwards of $2,600 a year for four-drug therapy. Dr. Dickert is a cardiologist at Emory University in Atlanta.

“The primary outcome for the study was whether patients and clinicians essentially talked about the cost of medications,” Dr. Dickert said in an interview. “The study was positive in that perspective; we saw an increase of about 19% in the encounters that had cost conversations related to heart failure medication.”

The trial, which Dr. Dickert presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, was designed to evaluate the effect of patient-specific OOP costs in the shared decision-making about heart failure medications, Dr. Dickert said.

The primary outcome was cost-informed decision-making, achieved in 68% of the intervention group encounters and 49% of control encounters (P = .021).
 

Fewer in-pharmacy adjustments

“We saw some really interesting signals of potential benefits in the space of actual decisions,” he said. “There were fewer, for example, contingency plans made in the intervention arm versus the control arm, and what that means is physicians were less likely to write a prescription and leave the decision about whether or not it’s worth it to the patient when they get to the pharmacy.”

The study intervention was a checklist of 19 heart failure medications that included OOP cost, ranging from minimal costs for generics such as diuretics and beta blockers to $617 for dapagliflozin. The checklist was based on an electronic medical records HF medications checklist. Researchers obtained drug cost estimates from TailorMed, a financial navigation company.

Six clinic sites within two health systems, one in Georgia, the other in Colorado, participated in the study. Each cluster had 40 or so patients (n = 247) randomized to the intervention or control. About two-thirds were White, a quarter were Black and 4% and 2.5% in the control and intervention group were Hispanic/LatinX. Income ranges were similar across both arms.

For the study intervention, patients got a call from the clinic 2-3 weeks before their scheduled visit to obtain verbal consent to participate and their OOP costs for drugs. The visit itself, where patients randomized to the intervention received the checklist, was audio recorded. After the visit, patients took a follow-up telephone survey, then the clinic staff did an electronic health record 3 months after the visit.

Getting the patient drug price information was not easy, Dr. Dickert said. “It required a fair amount of work and a big list to get that information that we could then populate the checklist for people,” he said. “It was a behind-the-scenes thing that is not necessarily scalable as done.”

Dr. Dickert acknowledged an increasing emphasis on price transparency in medicine, but the trade-offs are unknown. “Depending upon how that’s carried out, that can have different implications,” he said. “I’m a believer that if we think good communication has the ability to enhance medical decision-making, it also means that either bad information or bad communication can undermine.

“So, I think it’s really important to study these interventions and to do them in rigorous ways where we can really get a sense of what kind of impact they have on patients and clinicians.”
 

Study strengths and limitations

Discussant Dhruv Kazi, MD, director of the cardiac critical care unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that this study fulfills an important function in investigating how OOP costs influence medication adherence in HFrEF patients.

“The total cost of drugs has often been a focus of policy discussions,” he said. “We talk about, how do we reduce drug costs?” He noted the Inflation Reduction Act will bring some of these drug costs down.

“On the flip side,” he added, “as a community we pay less attention to out-of-pocket costs because we assume those are not in our control, yet what the patient cares about is not the total cost of the drug, but, ‘What am I going to pay this month, and what am I going to pay cumulatively over the course of the year? Can I even afford this drug?”

POCKET-COST-HF provided a sound basis for making that investigation, he said, adding that its multisite design and mixed-methods approach – patient contact before and after visits and recording of encounters – are strengths. “Just looking at the logistics involved in pulling off something like this, the study investigators deserve to be congratulated,” he said.

One limitation, Dr. Kazi said, is its exclusion of non–English speakers. Adding them in, along with testing the intervention in community, rural, and primary care settings, are future goals for the intervention, he said. Within the trial itself, examining the cost-effectiveness of the intervention would be laudable, Dr. Kazi said.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the trial. Dr. Dickert disclosed relationships with Abiomed. Dr. Kazi has no relevant relationships to disclose.

PHILADELPHIA – A carefully tailored program in which physicians talked with heart failure (HF) patients about the cost of their medications improved medication adherence and the likelihood that patients get the medications they’re prescribed, results of a pilot study show.

The POCKET-COST-HF trial integrated information about patient-specific out-of-pocket (OOP) drug costs into clinical encounters between cardiologists and patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) at six clinic sites in two different health systems. Neil W. Dickert, MD, PhD, primary investigator of the trial, said OOP costs for HFrEF patients with Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage can run upwards of $2,600 a year for four-drug therapy. Dr. Dickert is a cardiologist at Emory University in Atlanta.

“The primary outcome for the study was whether patients and clinicians essentially talked about the cost of medications,” Dr. Dickert said in an interview. “The study was positive in that perspective; we saw an increase of about 19% in the encounters that had cost conversations related to heart failure medication.”

The trial, which Dr. Dickert presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, was designed to evaluate the effect of patient-specific OOP costs in the shared decision-making about heart failure medications, Dr. Dickert said.

The primary outcome was cost-informed decision-making, achieved in 68% of the intervention group encounters and 49% of control encounters (P = .021).
 

Fewer in-pharmacy adjustments

“We saw some really interesting signals of potential benefits in the space of actual decisions,” he said. “There were fewer, for example, contingency plans made in the intervention arm versus the control arm, and what that means is physicians were less likely to write a prescription and leave the decision about whether or not it’s worth it to the patient when they get to the pharmacy.”

The study intervention was a checklist of 19 heart failure medications that included OOP cost, ranging from minimal costs for generics such as diuretics and beta blockers to $617 for dapagliflozin. The checklist was based on an electronic medical records HF medications checklist. Researchers obtained drug cost estimates from TailorMed, a financial navigation company.

Six clinic sites within two health systems, one in Georgia, the other in Colorado, participated in the study. Each cluster had 40 or so patients (n = 247) randomized to the intervention or control. About two-thirds were White, a quarter were Black and 4% and 2.5% in the control and intervention group were Hispanic/LatinX. Income ranges were similar across both arms.

For the study intervention, patients got a call from the clinic 2-3 weeks before their scheduled visit to obtain verbal consent to participate and their OOP costs for drugs. The visit itself, where patients randomized to the intervention received the checklist, was audio recorded. After the visit, patients took a follow-up telephone survey, then the clinic staff did an electronic health record 3 months after the visit.

Getting the patient drug price information was not easy, Dr. Dickert said. “It required a fair amount of work and a big list to get that information that we could then populate the checklist for people,” he said. “It was a behind-the-scenes thing that is not necessarily scalable as done.”

Dr. Dickert acknowledged an increasing emphasis on price transparency in medicine, but the trade-offs are unknown. “Depending upon how that’s carried out, that can have different implications,” he said. “I’m a believer that if we think good communication has the ability to enhance medical decision-making, it also means that either bad information or bad communication can undermine.

“So, I think it’s really important to study these interventions and to do them in rigorous ways where we can really get a sense of what kind of impact they have on patients and clinicians.”
 

Study strengths and limitations

Discussant Dhruv Kazi, MD, director of the cardiac critical care unit at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said in an interview that this study fulfills an important function in investigating how OOP costs influence medication adherence in HFrEF patients.

“The total cost of drugs has often been a focus of policy discussions,” he said. “We talk about, how do we reduce drug costs?” He noted the Inflation Reduction Act will bring some of these drug costs down.

“On the flip side,” he added, “as a community we pay less attention to out-of-pocket costs because we assume those are not in our control, yet what the patient cares about is not the total cost of the drug, but, ‘What am I going to pay this month, and what am I going to pay cumulatively over the course of the year? Can I even afford this drug?”

POCKET-COST-HF provided a sound basis for making that investigation, he said, adding that its multisite design and mixed-methods approach – patient contact before and after visits and recording of encounters – are strengths. “Just looking at the logistics involved in pulling off something like this, the study investigators deserve to be congratulated,” he said.

One limitation, Dr. Kazi said, is its exclusion of non–English speakers. Adding them in, along with testing the intervention in community, rural, and primary care settings, are future goals for the intervention, he said. Within the trial itself, examining the cost-effectiveness of the intervention would be laudable, Dr. Kazi said.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the trial. Dr. Dickert disclosed relationships with Abiomed. Dr. Kazi has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Excess consumption of red meat, whether processed or not, is linked to a greater risk for developing type 2 diabetes. This association was confirmed by a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a data analysis of nearly 217,000 people who were monitored for three decades as part of several cohort studies. “Our study supports the current dietary recommendations of limiting consumption of red meat and highlights the importance of different alternative sources of protein in preventing type 2 diabetes,” the researchers wrote.

Consumption and risk

The study included men and women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were used to collect data every 2-4 years on the frequency of specific food consumption. Information on the onset of diseases and on different health-related aspects was collected every 2 years.

Those who consumed more red meat had a higher body mass index, higher total energy intake, and greater likelihood of being a smoker. They were physically less active and less likely to take multivitamins. In a follow-up of 5.48 million person-years, 22,761 cases of type 2 diabetes were recorded.

The link between consumption of processed and unprocessed red meat (and both combined) and a higher risk of diabetes was observed in all cohorts when analyzed separately and jointly. The people in the highest quintile for combined red meat consumption had a 2% greater risk of developing the disease, compared with those in the lowest quintile. The risk increases associated with processed and unprocessed meat were 51% and 40%, respectively. One additional serving per day of processed red meat was associated with a 1.46-fold greater risk of diabetes. This risk was 1.24 times greater for unprocessed meat and 1.28 times greater for both types combined.

The associations had a linear dose-response relationship and remained firm even after accounting for BMI, which the researchers stressed could be a mediating factor. Finally, the associations were stronger when considering the average cumulative consumption over the 30-year follow-up period and still stronger following the calibration of meat consumption with data extrapolated from food registers. The latter step was taken to account for measurement errors.
 

Alternatives are better

By analyzing alternative protein sources, the researchers discovered that nuts and legumes are associated with the most substantial reductions in diabetes risk. “This discovery is consistent with the evidence that shows that sources of unsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants have beneficial effects on glycemic control, insulin response, and inflammation,” they wrote. By replacing a serving of processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, or a combination of the two with a serving of dry fruit or legumes, the risk of developing diabetes is lowered by 30%, 41%, and 29%, respectively. Replacing red meat with a serving of dairy products is also associated with a reduced risk.

Confirmation

Several biological mechanisms could contribute to the increased risk for type 2 diabetes in people who consume red meat. The high level of saturated fats or the relatively low level of polyunsaturated fats, heme iron, or the high nitrate content in processed red meats could play a role. A strong positive association between consumption of this meat, particularly when processed, and the onset of diabetes has already emerged from other studies, including a trial carried out several years ago in the same cohorts. “In the current study, we wanted to look at this association in the same three cohorts in more detail, with over 9,000 additional cases of type 2 diabetes documented with extensive follow-up,” the researchers explained.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Excess consumption of red meat, whether processed or not, is linked to a greater risk for developing type 2 diabetes. This association was confirmed by a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a data analysis of nearly 217,000 people who were monitored for three decades as part of several cohort studies. “Our study supports the current dietary recommendations of limiting consumption of red meat and highlights the importance of different alternative sources of protein in preventing type 2 diabetes,” the researchers wrote.

Consumption and risk

The study included men and women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were used to collect data every 2-4 years on the frequency of specific food consumption. Information on the onset of diseases and on different health-related aspects was collected every 2 years.

Those who consumed more red meat had a higher body mass index, higher total energy intake, and greater likelihood of being a smoker. They were physically less active and less likely to take multivitamins. In a follow-up of 5.48 million person-years, 22,761 cases of type 2 diabetes were recorded.

The link between consumption of processed and unprocessed red meat (and both combined) and a higher risk of diabetes was observed in all cohorts when analyzed separately and jointly. The people in the highest quintile for combined red meat consumption had a 2% greater risk of developing the disease, compared with those in the lowest quintile. The risk increases associated with processed and unprocessed meat were 51% and 40%, respectively. One additional serving per day of processed red meat was associated with a 1.46-fold greater risk of diabetes. This risk was 1.24 times greater for unprocessed meat and 1.28 times greater for both types combined.

The associations had a linear dose-response relationship and remained firm even after accounting for BMI, which the researchers stressed could be a mediating factor. Finally, the associations were stronger when considering the average cumulative consumption over the 30-year follow-up period and still stronger following the calibration of meat consumption with data extrapolated from food registers. The latter step was taken to account for measurement errors.
 

Alternatives are better

By analyzing alternative protein sources, the researchers discovered that nuts and legumes are associated with the most substantial reductions in diabetes risk. “This discovery is consistent with the evidence that shows that sources of unsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants have beneficial effects on glycemic control, insulin response, and inflammation,” they wrote. By replacing a serving of processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, or a combination of the two with a serving of dry fruit or legumes, the risk of developing diabetes is lowered by 30%, 41%, and 29%, respectively. Replacing red meat with a serving of dairy products is also associated with a reduced risk.

Confirmation

Several biological mechanisms could contribute to the increased risk for type 2 diabetes in people who consume red meat. The high level of saturated fats or the relatively low level of polyunsaturated fats, heme iron, or the high nitrate content in processed red meats could play a role. A strong positive association between consumption of this meat, particularly when processed, and the onset of diabetes has already emerged from other studies, including a trial carried out several years ago in the same cohorts. “In the current study, we wanted to look at this association in the same three cohorts in more detail, with over 9,000 additional cases of type 2 diabetes documented with extensive follow-up,” the researchers explained.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Excess consumption of red meat, whether processed or not, is linked to a greater risk for developing type 2 diabetes. This association was confirmed by a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, a data analysis of nearly 217,000 people who were monitored for three decades as part of several cohort studies. “Our study supports the current dietary recommendations of limiting consumption of red meat and highlights the importance of different alternative sources of protein in preventing type 2 diabetes,” the researchers wrote.

Consumption and risk

The study included men and women who took part in the Nurses’ Health Study, the Nurses’ Health Study II, or the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Questionnaires were used to collect data every 2-4 years on the frequency of specific food consumption. Information on the onset of diseases and on different health-related aspects was collected every 2 years.

Those who consumed more red meat had a higher body mass index, higher total energy intake, and greater likelihood of being a smoker. They were physically less active and less likely to take multivitamins. In a follow-up of 5.48 million person-years, 22,761 cases of type 2 diabetes were recorded.

The link between consumption of processed and unprocessed red meat (and both combined) and a higher risk of diabetes was observed in all cohorts when analyzed separately and jointly. The people in the highest quintile for combined red meat consumption had a 2% greater risk of developing the disease, compared with those in the lowest quintile. The risk increases associated with processed and unprocessed meat were 51% and 40%, respectively. One additional serving per day of processed red meat was associated with a 1.46-fold greater risk of diabetes. This risk was 1.24 times greater for unprocessed meat and 1.28 times greater for both types combined.

The associations had a linear dose-response relationship and remained firm even after accounting for BMI, which the researchers stressed could be a mediating factor. Finally, the associations were stronger when considering the average cumulative consumption over the 30-year follow-up period and still stronger following the calibration of meat consumption with data extrapolated from food registers. The latter step was taken to account for measurement errors.
 

Alternatives are better

By analyzing alternative protein sources, the researchers discovered that nuts and legumes are associated with the most substantial reductions in diabetes risk. “This discovery is consistent with the evidence that shows that sources of unsaturated fatty acids and antioxidants have beneficial effects on glycemic control, insulin response, and inflammation,” they wrote. By replacing a serving of processed red meat, unprocessed red meat, or a combination of the two with a serving of dry fruit or legumes, the risk of developing diabetes is lowered by 30%, 41%, and 29%, respectively. Replacing red meat with a serving of dairy products is also associated with a reduced risk.

Confirmation

Several biological mechanisms could contribute to the increased risk for type 2 diabetes in people who consume red meat. The high level of saturated fats or the relatively low level of polyunsaturated fats, heme iron, or the high nitrate content in processed red meats could play a role. A strong positive association between consumption of this meat, particularly when processed, and the onset of diabetes has already emerged from other studies, including a trial carried out several years ago in the same cohorts. “In the current study, we wanted to look at this association in the same three cohorts in more detail, with over 9,000 additional cases of type 2 diabetes documented with extensive follow-up,” the researchers explained.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In April 2020, as many Americans prepared to spend the Easter holiday in lockdown, pop star Mariah Carey released a video honoring the “sacrifices and courage” of frontline workers battling COVID-19 – her 1993 hit, “Hero.”

“The sorrow that you know will melt away,” Ms. Carey sang. “When you feel like hope is gone,” the song continued, strength and answers can be found within, and “a hero lies in you.”

For health care professionals, the reality of 2020 wasn’t quite so uplifting. PPE shortages and spillover ICUs had many feeling helpless, exhausted, and overwhelmed. Few if any medical professionals felt their sorrows “melt away.”

We can’t expect depth and nuance from pop songs, but we can find in them the imagery that runs through our culture. The “hero narrative” – the idea that doctors, nurses, and others in health care have superhuman endurance and selflessness – has long been an undercurrent in the medical field.

And yet, without a workforce willing to perform without adequate sleep, food, or time off, the health care system couldn’t function, says Brian Park, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. At many academic health centers, for example, residents are “the bedrock of the workforce,” he explains. If they didn’t work 80-100 hours per week, those systems wouldn’t exist.

So, how do we look at the health care system in a way that is both grateful and critical, Dr. Park wonders. “How do we honor extreme acts of heroism and also acknowledge that the system sometimes gets by on the acts of heroes to patch up some of the brokenness and fragmentation within it?”

Put simply: What makes “heroism” necessary in the first place?
 

Heroes are determined

Ala Stanford, MD, a pediatric surgeon in Philadelphia, has frequently been called a “health care hero.” Given the title by CNN in 2021, she has received numerous other awards and accolades, featured in Fortune Magazine’s “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders” in 2021 and USA Today’s “Women of the Year” in 2022.

In 2020, Dr. Stanford was sheltering in place and watching “way too much” cable news. “They would play solemn music and show photos of all the people who had died,” she recalls. “I thought, ‘All these people are Black or brown. What is going on?’”

The standard explanation was that people of color were more vulnerable because they were more likely to be essential workers or have chronic health conditions. But Dr. Stanford believed this was only part of the story. The reason she saw that local Black communities had higher positivity rates was because people couldn’t get a COVID test.

Dr. Stanford got call after call from Philadelphians who had been turned away from testing centers. When she questioned colleagues, “they gave me every reason under the sun,” Dr. Stanford says. “It was because someone took public transportation, and they were only testing people in cars, or because they weren’t over 65, or because they didn’t have other comorbid health conditions, or because they weren’t a health care worker, or because they hadn’t traveled to China ...” The list went on.

Dr. Stanford appealed to local, state, and federal health authorities. Finally, she took matters into her own hands. She found tests, packed a van with masks, gowns, and gloves, and drove across the city going door to door. Eventually, she organized testing in the parking lots of Black churches, sometimes seeing more than 400 people per day.

The services were funded entirely through her own bank account and donations until she was eventually awarded a CDC grant through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and began to receive contracts from the city.

Since then, Dr. Stanford’s mission has evolved. She and her team provided COVID vaccinations to thousands, and in 2021, opened the Dr. Ala Stanford Center for Health Equity. The center offers primary care for all ages in underserved communities.

Still, Dr. Stanford doesn’t think of herself as a hero, and she stresses that many other people contributed to her success. “I think the world was on fire, and we were all firefighters,” Dr. Stanford says. “Someone said to me, ‘Ala, you ran to the fire and everyone else was running away from it, and you didn’t have to.’ … I feel like I was able to galvanize people to realize the power that they actually had. Maybe independently, they couldn’t do a whole lot, but collectively, we were a force.”
 

Heroes are selfless

Nicole Jackson, RN, an emergency room manager and nurse at Advocate Trinity Hospital in Chicago, was recently honored as a Health Care Hero by the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago.

On June 23, 2022, Jackson’s emergency department was understaffed and struggling with an influx of patients when three gunshot victims arrived. Two needed to be transferred to a trauma center, and one – with multiple gunshot wounds – required a critical care nurse in the ambulance. But the ETA for that transport was 90 minutes, which meant the patient might not survive. Although Ms. Jackson was already working beyond her shift, she rode in the ambulance with the patient herself and probably saved his life.

While this incident stood out to a colleague who nominated her for the Red Cross award, Ms. Jackson finds herself working extra hours fairly often. “Since COVID, that’s pretty much been like any other hospital,” she says. “We’ve had staffing challenges that we work through every day. So, the nurses come, they show up, and they do the best that they can with what we have to keep our patients safe.”

A 2022 survey by McKinsey estimated that by 2025, there could be a gap of 200,000 to 450,000 nurses in the United States. A two-year impact assessment from the American Nurses Foundation found that among more than 12,500 nurses, 40% were considering leaving their positions before the pandemic. By 2022, that number had jumped to 52% with the top reasons being insufficient staffing and negative effects on health and well-being.

Can the “hero narrative” help that situation? Ms. Jackson says she doesn’t see herself as a hero, but the supportive environment and gestures of recognition by staff do make her feel appreciated. These include daily messages offering “kudos” and nominations for the DAISY Award, which she herself received in 2022.

“I have people who I have encouraged to become nurses,” Ms. Jackson says, “and when they saw [the award], they were really excited about becoming a nurse.”
 

Heroes are strong

Jasmine Marcelin, MD, an infectious disease physician with Nebraska Medicine in Omaha, understands the need for heroes as symbols and sources of inspiration. Dr. Marcelin is a fan of the superhero movie genre. There is value, she says, in feeling hope and excitement while watching Superman or Wonder Woman save the day. Who doesn’t want to believe (if only briefly) that the good guys will always win?

In reality, Dr. Marcelin says, “none of us are invincible.” And it’s dangerous to forget that “the people behind the symbols are also human.”

In 2021, Dr. Marcelin gave a TEDx talk entitled, “The Myth of the Health Care Hero.” In it she discussed the extreme physical and mental toll of the pandemic on health care workers and urged her audience to think less about extravagant praise and more about their personal responsibilities. “We don’t want or need to be called heroes,” Dr. Marcelin said. “Right now, our love language is action. We need your help, and we cannot save the world on our own.”

Dr. Marcelin also sees links between superhuman expectations and the high levels of burnout in the medical field.

“It’s a systemic issue,” she explains, “where it requires a revamping and revitalization of the entire psyche of health care to recognize that the people working within this profession are human. And the things that we think and feel and need are the same as anybody else.”
 

Heroes are self-sacrificing 


Well-being, burnout, and disengagement in health care has become a focus for Oregon Health & Science’s Dr. Park, who is also director of RELATE Lab, an organization that aims to make health care more human-centered and equitable through leadership training, research, and community organizing.

For him, hearing neighbors banging pots and pans during the early pandemic was complicated. “The first phase for me was, ‘Thank you. I feel seen. I feel appreciated,’ ” he says. “Yes, I’m wearing a mask. I’m going in. I’m changing in the garage when I come home, so my kid and my partner don’t get sick.”

But after a while, the cheers started to feel like pressure. “Have I done anything heroic today?” Dr. Park asked himself. “Have I been as heroic as my friend who is in the hospital in the ICU? I don’t deserve this, so don’t bang those pots and pans for me.”

When your identity becomes about being a hero, Dr. Park says, when that becomes the standard by which you measure yourself, the result is often a sense of shame.

“I think a lot of people feel ashamed that they feel burnout,” he says, “because they’re supposed to be heroes, putting on their capes and masks. They’re waking up and saying, ‘I’m exhausted, and I can’t play that part today. But I know that’s the social expectation of me.’ “
 

Heroes are noble

There may not be a clear solution, but for many health care professionals, symbolic gestures alone are inadequate and, in certain cases, insulting.

On Doctor’s Day 2023, Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist, tweeted a photo of an appreciation “gift” for staff from an unnamed hospital. The small items had metaphorical meanings – a rubber band “as a reminder to stay flexible,” a quarter “as a reminder to ‘call’ for help,” etc.

“Welcome to how you give thanks to ‘health care heroes,’ ” Dr. Patel tweeted.

For Dr. Patel, the issue is not lavish gifts but a need for an attitude shift. He recalls colleagues who felt ashamed asking for mental health services or time off, “because they were bombarded by the hero narrative, by the manufactured pressure that they needed to put their jobs above their own health – because that’s what ‘heroes’ do. I’m willing to bet most physicians would rather receive a sincere email with a transparent plan to better support health care workers than any Doctor’s Day gift,” he says.

In Dr. Marcelin’s TEDx talk, she quotes Spider-Man’s classic adage, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” She argues that this motto doesn’t just apply to those who can fly or deflect bullets; that’s not what heroism is. In fact, most people have their own definition of the word.

For Dr. Stanford, a hero is “someone who is selfless, putting the needs of others before their own.” Dr. Park believes there are no individual heroes. “It’s the work of the collective that’s truly heroic.”

By those standards, clearly anyone can step up, offer help, act with courage and kindness, and be heroic. “We humans, as ordinary as we are, can be extraordinary by using our power to do what’s right,” Dr. Marcelin says, “because there’s no such thing as health care heroes, just good people doing the right thing.”

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

In April 2020, as many Americans prepared to spend the Easter holiday in lockdown, pop star Mariah Carey released a video honoring the “sacrifices and courage” of frontline workers battling COVID-19 – her 1993 hit, “Hero.”

“The sorrow that you know will melt away,” Ms. Carey sang. “When you feel like hope is gone,” the song continued, strength and answers can be found within, and “a hero lies in you.”

For health care professionals, the reality of 2020 wasn’t quite so uplifting. PPE shortages and spillover ICUs had many feeling helpless, exhausted, and overwhelmed. Few if any medical professionals felt their sorrows “melt away.”

We can’t expect depth and nuance from pop songs, but we can find in them the imagery that runs through our culture. The “hero narrative” – the idea that doctors, nurses, and others in health care have superhuman endurance and selflessness – has long been an undercurrent in the medical field.

And yet, without a workforce willing to perform without adequate sleep, food, or time off, the health care system couldn’t function, says Brian Park, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. At many academic health centers, for example, residents are “the bedrock of the workforce,” he explains. If they didn’t work 80-100 hours per week, those systems wouldn’t exist.

So, how do we look at the health care system in a way that is both grateful and critical, Dr. Park wonders. “How do we honor extreme acts of heroism and also acknowledge that the system sometimes gets by on the acts of heroes to patch up some of the brokenness and fragmentation within it?”

Put simply: What makes “heroism” necessary in the first place?
 

Heroes are determined

Ala Stanford, MD, a pediatric surgeon in Philadelphia, has frequently been called a “health care hero.” Given the title by CNN in 2021, she has received numerous other awards and accolades, featured in Fortune Magazine’s “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders” in 2021 and USA Today’s “Women of the Year” in 2022.

In 2020, Dr. Stanford was sheltering in place and watching “way too much” cable news. “They would play solemn music and show photos of all the people who had died,” she recalls. “I thought, ‘All these people are Black or brown. What is going on?’”

The standard explanation was that people of color were more vulnerable because they were more likely to be essential workers or have chronic health conditions. But Dr. Stanford believed this was only part of the story. The reason she saw that local Black communities had higher positivity rates was because people couldn’t get a COVID test.

Dr. Stanford got call after call from Philadelphians who had been turned away from testing centers. When she questioned colleagues, “they gave me every reason under the sun,” Dr. Stanford says. “It was because someone took public transportation, and they were only testing people in cars, or because they weren’t over 65, or because they didn’t have other comorbid health conditions, or because they weren’t a health care worker, or because they hadn’t traveled to China ...” The list went on.

Dr. Stanford appealed to local, state, and federal health authorities. Finally, she took matters into her own hands. She found tests, packed a van with masks, gowns, and gloves, and drove across the city going door to door. Eventually, she organized testing in the parking lots of Black churches, sometimes seeing more than 400 people per day.

The services were funded entirely through her own bank account and donations until she was eventually awarded a CDC grant through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and began to receive contracts from the city.

Since then, Dr. Stanford’s mission has evolved. She and her team provided COVID vaccinations to thousands, and in 2021, opened the Dr. Ala Stanford Center for Health Equity. The center offers primary care for all ages in underserved communities.

Still, Dr. Stanford doesn’t think of herself as a hero, and she stresses that many other people contributed to her success. “I think the world was on fire, and we were all firefighters,” Dr. Stanford says. “Someone said to me, ‘Ala, you ran to the fire and everyone else was running away from it, and you didn’t have to.’ … I feel like I was able to galvanize people to realize the power that they actually had. Maybe independently, they couldn’t do a whole lot, but collectively, we were a force.”
 

Heroes are selfless

Nicole Jackson, RN, an emergency room manager and nurse at Advocate Trinity Hospital in Chicago, was recently honored as a Health Care Hero by the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago.

On June 23, 2022, Jackson’s emergency department was understaffed and struggling with an influx of patients when three gunshot victims arrived. Two needed to be transferred to a trauma center, and one – with multiple gunshot wounds – required a critical care nurse in the ambulance. But the ETA for that transport was 90 minutes, which meant the patient might not survive. Although Ms. Jackson was already working beyond her shift, she rode in the ambulance with the patient herself and probably saved his life.

While this incident stood out to a colleague who nominated her for the Red Cross award, Ms. Jackson finds herself working extra hours fairly often. “Since COVID, that’s pretty much been like any other hospital,” she says. “We’ve had staffing challenges that we work through every day. So, the nurses come, they show up, and they do the best that they can with what we have to keep our patients safe.”

A 2022 survey by McKinsey estimated that by 2025, there could be a gap of 200,000 to 450,000 nurses in the United States. A two-year impact assessment from the American Nurses Foundation found that among more than 12,500 nurses, 40% were considering leaving their positions before the pandemic. By 2022, that number had jumped to 52% with the top reasons being insufficient staffing and negative effects on health and well-being.

Can the “hero narrative” help that situation? Ms. Jackson says she doesn’t see herself as a hero, but the supportive environment and gestures of recognition by staff do make her feel appreciated. These include daily messages offering “kudos” and nominations for the DAISY Award, which she herself received in 2022.

“I have people who I have encouraged to become nurses,” Ms. Jackson says, “and when they saw [the award], they were really excited about becoming a nurse.”
 

Heroes are strong

Jasmine Marcelin, MD, an infectious disease physician with Nebraska Medicine in Omaha, understands the need for heroes as symbols and sources of inspiration. Dr. Marcelin is a fan of the superhero movie genre. There is value, she says, in feeling hope and excitement while watching Superman or Wonder Woman save the day. Who doesn’t want to believe (if only briefly) that the good guys will always win?

In reality, Dr. Marcelin says, “none of us are invincible.” And it’s dangerous to forget that “the people behind the symbols are also human.”

In 2021, Dr. Marcelin gave a TEDx talk entitled, “The Myth of the Health Care Hero.” In it she discussed the extreme physical and mental toll of the pandemic on health care workers and urged her audience to think less about extravagant praise and more about their personal responsibilities. “We don’t want or need to be called heroes,” Dr. Marcelin said. “Right now, our love language is action. We need your help, and we cannot save the world on our own.”

Dr. Marcelin also sees links between superhuman expectations and the high levels of burnout in the medical field.

“It’s a systemic issue,” she explains, “where it requires a revamping and revitalization of the entire psyche of health care to recognize that the people working within this profession are human. And the things that we think and feel and need are the same as anybody else.”
 

Heroes are self-sacrificing 


Well-being, burnout, and disengagement in health care has become a focus for Oregon Health & Science’s Dr. Park, who is also director of RELATE Lab, an organization that aims to make health care more human-centered and equitable through leadership training, research, and community organizing.

For him, hearing neighbors banging pots and pans during the early pandemic was complicated. “The first phase for me was, ‘Thank you. I feel seen. I feel appreciated,’ ” he says. “Yes, I’m wearing a mask. I’m going in. I’m changing in the garage when I come home, so my kid and my partner don’t get sick.”

But after a while, the cheers started to feel like pressure. “Have I done anything heroic today?” Dr. Park asked himself. “Have I been as heroic as my friend who is in the hospital in the ICU? I don’t deserve this, so don’t bang those pots and pans for me.”

When your identity becomes about being a hero, Dr. Park says, when that becomes the standard by which you measure yourself, the result is often a sense of shame.

“I think a lot of people feel ashamed that they feel burnout,” he says, “because they’re supposed to be heroes, putting on their capes and masks. They’re waking up and saying, ‘I’m exhausted, and I can’t play that part today. But I know that’s the social expectation of me.’ “
 

Heroes are noble

There may not be a clear solution, but for many health care professionals, symbolic gestures alone are inadequate and, in certain cases, insulting.

On Doctor’s Day 2023, Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist, tweeted a photo of an appreciation “gift” for staff from an unnamed hospital. The small items had metaphorical meanings – a rubber band “as a reminder to stay flexible,” a quarter “as a reminder to ‘call’ for help,” etc.

“Welcome to how you give thanks to ‘health care heroes,’ ” Dr. Patel tweeted.

For Dr. Patel, the issue is not lavish gifts but a need for an attitude shift. He recalls colleagues who felt ashamed asking for mental health services or time off, “because they were bombarded by the hero narrative, by the manufactured pressure that they needed to put their jobs above their own health – because that’s what ‘heroes’ do. I’m willing to bet most physicians would rather receive a sincere email with a transparent plan to better support health care workers than any Doctor’s Day gift,” he says.

In Dr. Marcelin’s TEDx talk, she quotes Spider-Man’s classic adage, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” She argues that this motto doesn’t just apply to those who can fly or deflect bullets; that’s not what heroism is. In fact, most people have their own definition of the word.

For Dr. Stanford, a hero is “someone who is selfless, putting the needs of others before their own.” Dr. Park believes there are no individual heroes. “It’s the work of the collective that’s truly heroic.”

By those standards, clearly anyone can step up, offer help, act with courage and kindness, and be heroic. “We humans, as ordinary as we are, can be extraordinary by using our power to do what’s right,” Dr. Marcelin says, “because there’s no such thing as health care heroes, just good people doing the right thing.”

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

In April 2020, as many Americans prepared to spend the Easter holiday in lockdown, pop star Mariah Carey released a video honoring the “sacrifices and courage” of frontline workers battling COVID-19 – her 1993 hit, “Hero.”

“The sorrow that you know will melt away,” Ms. Carey sang. “When you feel like hope is gone,” the song continued, strength and answers can be found within, and “a hero lies in you.”

For health care professionals, the reality of 2020 wasn’t quite so uplifting. PPE shortages and spillover ICUs had many feeling helpless, exhausted, and overwhelmed. Few if any medical professionals felt their sorrows “melt away.”

We can’t expect depth and nuance from pop songs, but we can find in them the imagery that runs through our culture. The “hero narrative” – the idea that doctors, nurses, and others in health care have superhuman endurance and selflessness – has long been an undercurrent in the medical field.

And yet, without a workforce willing to perform without adequate sleep, food, or time off, the health care system couldn’t function, says Brian Park, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. At many academic health centers, for example, residents are “the bedrock of the workforce,” he explains. If they didn’t work 80-100 hours per week, those systems wouldn’t exist.

So, how do we look at the health care system in a way that is both grateful and critical, Dr. Park wonders. “How do we honor extreme acts of heroism and also acknowledge that the system sometimes gets by on the acts of heroes to patch up some of the brokenness and fragmentation within it?”

Put simply: What makes “heroism” necessary in the first place?
 

Heroes are determined

Ala Stanford, MD, a pediatric surgeon in Philadelphia, has frequently been called a “health care hero.” Given the title by CNN in 2021, she has received numerous other awards and accolades, featured in Fortune Magazine’s “World’s 50 Greatest Leaders” in 2021 and USA Today’s “Women of the Year” in 2022.

In 2020, Dr. Stanford was sheltering in place and watching “way too much” cable news. “They would play solemn music and show photos of all the people who had died,” she recalls. “I thought, ‘All these people are Black or brown. What is going on?’”

The standard explanation was that people of color were more vulnerable because they were more likely to be essential workers or have chronic health conditions. But Dr. Stanford believed this was only part of the story. The reason she saw that local Black communities had higher positivity rates was because people couldn’t get a COVID test.

Dr. Stanford got call after call from Philadelphians who had been turned away from testing centers. When she questioned colleagues, “they gave me every reason under the sun,” Dr. Stanford says. “It was because someone took public transportation, and they were only testing people in cars, or because they weren’t over 65, or because they didn’t have other comorbid health conditions, or because they weren’t a health care worker, or because they hadn’t traveled to China ...” The list went on.

Dr. Stanford appealed to local, state, and federal health authorities. Finally, she took matters into her own hands. She found tests, packed a van with masks, gowns, and gloves, and drove across the city going door to door. Eventually, she organized testing in the parking lots of Black churches, sometimes seeing more than 400 people per day.

The services were funded entirely through her own bank account and donations until she was eventually awarded a CDC grant through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 and began to receive contracts from the city.

Since then, Dr. Stanford’s mission has evolved. She and her team provided COVID vaccinations to thousands, and in 2021, opened the Dr. Ala Stanford Center for Health Equity. The center offers primary care for all ages in underserved communities.

Still, Dr. Stanford doesn’t think of herself as a hero, and she stresses that many other people contributed to her success. “I think the world was on fire, and we were all firefighters,” Dr. Stanford says. “Someone said to me, ‘Ala, you ran to the fire and everyone else was running away from it, and you didn’t have to.’ … I feel like I was able to galvanize people to realize the power that they actually had. Maybe independently, they couldn’t do a whole lot, but collectively, we were a force.”
 

Heroes are selfless

Nicole Jackson, RN, an emergency room manager and nurse at Advocate Trinity Hospital in Chicago, was recently honored as a Health Care Hero by the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago.

On June 23, 2022, Jackson’s emergency department was understaffed and struggling with an influx of patients when three gunshot victims arrived. Two needed to be transferred to a trauma center, and one – with multiple gunshot wounds – required a critical care nurse in the ambulance. But the ETA for that transport was 90 minutes, which meant the patient might not survive. Although Ms. Jackson was already working beyond her shift, she rode in the ambulance with the patient herself and probably saved his life.

While this incident stood out to a colleague who nominated her for the Red Cross award, Ms. Jackson finds herself working extra hours fairly often. “Since COVID, that’s pretty much been like any other hospital,” she says. “We’ve had staffing challenges that we work through every day. So, the nurses come, they show up, and they do the best that they can with what we have to keep our patients safe.”

A 2022 survey by McKinsey estimated that by 2025, there could be a gap of 200,000 to 450,000 nurses in the United States. A two-year impact assessment from the American Nurses Foundation found that among more than 12,500 nurses, 40% were considering leaving their positions before the pandemic. By 2022, that number had jumped to 52% with the top reasons being insufficient staffing and negative effects on health and well-being.

Can the “hero narrative” help that situation? Ms. Jackson says she doesn’t see herself as a hero, but the supportive environment and gestures of recognition by staff do make her feel appreciated. These include daily messages offering “kudos” and nominations for the DAISY Award, which she herself received in 2022.

“I have people who I have encouraged to become nurses,” Ms. Jackson says, “and when they saw [the award], they were really excited about becoming a nurse.”
 

Heroes are strong

Jasmine Marcelin, MD, an infectious disease physician with Nebraska Medicine in Omaha, understands the need for heroes as symbols and sources of inspiration. Dr. Marcelin is a fan of the superhero movie genre. There is value, she says, in feeling hope and excitement while watching Superman or Wonder Woman save the day. Who doesn’t want to believe (if only briefly) that the good guys will always win?

In reality, Dr. Marcelin says, “none of us are invincible.” And it’s dangerous to forget that “the people behind the symbols are also human.”

In 2021, Dr. Marcelin gave a TEDx talk entitled, “The Myth of the Health Care Hero.” In it she discussed the extreme physical and mental toll of the pandemic on health care workers and urged her audience to think less about extravagant praise and more about their personal responsibilities. “We don’t want or need to be called heroes,” Dr. Marcelin said. “Right now, our love language is action. We need your help, and we cannot save the world on our own.”

Dr. Marcelin also sees links between superhuman expectations and the high levels of burnout in the medical field.

“It’s a systemic issue,” she explains, “where it requires a revamping and revitalization of the entire psyche of health care to recognize that the people working within this profession are human. And the things that we think and feel and need are the same as anybody else.”
 

Heroes are self-sacrificing 


Well-being, burnout, and disengagement in health care has become a focus for Oregon Health & Science’s Dr. Park, who is also director of RELATE Lab, an organization that aims to make health care more human-centered and equitable through leadership training, research, and community organizing.

For him, hearing neighbors banging pots and pans during the early pandemic was complicated. “The first phase for me was, ‘Thank you. I feel seen. I feel appreciated,’ ” he says. “Yes, I’m wearing a mask. I’m going in. I’m changing in the garage when I come home, so my kid and my partner don’t get sick.”

But after a while, the cheers started to feel like pressure. “Have I done anything heroic today?” Dr. Park asked himself. “Have I been as heroic as my friend who is in the hospital in the ICU? I don’t deserve this, so don’t bang those pots and pans for me.”

When your identity becomes about being a hero, Dr. Park says, when that becomes the standard by which you measure yourself, the result is often a sense of shame.

“I think a lot of people feel ashamed that they feel burnout,” he says, “because they’re supposed to be heroes, putting on their capes and masks. They’re waking up and saying, ‘I’m exhausted, and I can’t play that part today. But I know that’s the social expectation of me.’ “
 

Heroes are noble

There may not be a clear solution, but for many health care professionals, symbolic gestures alone are inadequate and, in certain cases, insulting.

On Doctor’s Day 2023, Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist, tweeted a photo of an appreciation “gift” for staff from an unnamed hospital. The small items had metaphorical meanings – a rubber band “as a reminder to stay flexible,” a quarter “as a reminder to ‘call’ for help,” etc.

“Welcome to how you give thanks to ‘health care heroes,’ ” Dr. Patel tweeted.

For Dr. Patel, the issue is not lavish gifts but a need for an attitude shift. He recalls colleagues who felt ashamed asking for mental health services or time off, “because they were bombarded by the hero narrative, by the manufactured pressure that they needed to put their jobs above their own health – because that’s what ‘heroes’ do. I’m willing to bet most physicians would rather receive a sincere email with a transparent plan to better support health care workers than any Doctor’s Day gift,” he says.

In Dr. Marcelin’s TEDx talk, she quotes Spider-Man’s classic adage, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” She argues that this motto doesn’t just apply to those who can fly or deflect bullets; that’s not what heroism is. In fact, most people have their own definition of the word.

For Dr. Stanford, a hero is “someone who is selfless, putting the needs of others before their own.” Dr. Park believes there are no individual heroes. “It’s the work of the collective that’s truly heroic.”

By those standards, clearly anyone can step up, offer help, act with courage and kindness, and be heroic. “We humans, as ordinary as we are, can be extraordinary by using our power to do what’s right,” Dr. Marcelin says, “because there’s no such thing as health care heroes, just good people doing the right thing.”

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

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

Despite higher upfront costs, enhanced home blood pressure monitoring by hypertension patients could be cost-effective compared with standard clinical care over the longer term, a systematic review in JAMA Network Open found.

In an analysis of 16 studies, at-home blood pressure (HBPM) monitoring, particularly using automatic 24-hour continuous measurements alone or combined with additional support or team-based care, appeared to be economical over a minimum 10-year period compared with usual care – higher expenditures for equipment and training notwithstanding.

Texas A&amp;M University

“Our findings suggest that clinicians, hospitals, health care systems, third-party payers, and other stakeholders should consider the long-term incremental benefits and improvements in patients’ blood pressure, quality of life, and reductions in adverse outcomes,” wrote Michelle A. Hayek, of the Population Informatics Lab, department of industrial and systems engineering, at Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex., and colleagues.

HBPM increased considerably during the COVID pandemic and is expected to increase further in the next decade, according to lead author Theodoros Giannouchos, PhD, MS, MPharm, assistant professor in the department of health policy and organization in the School of Public Health at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. “Because home blood pressure monitoring might add costs to insurers, patients, and the health care system – at least short term – we noticed a gap in the updated literature on whether this method is cost-effective relative to in-office monitoring. Hence, we conducted this review.”

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Six of the 16 studies were conducted in the United States and six in the United Kingdom; 14 used a health care insurance system perspective to determine costs. In nearly half, quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost per 1–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure were used as outcomes.

Self-monitoring included self measurements transmitted to health care professionals and involved either periodic readings, such as twice each morning and evening during the first week of every month, 3 times per week, or 24-hour ambulatory readings with a portable device every 20 or 30 minutes. Among studies comparing HBPM alone versus 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) or HBPM combined with additional support or team-based care, the latter two approaches were more cost effective. The benefits would appear to offset the costs of more resource-intensive at-home self-monitoring methods over office care and traditional at-home monitoring only.

In addition, the authors noted, ABPM in particular might detect elevated in-office, or white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension, the latter referring to normal BP readings measured in the office but actual elevated pressures in the everyday home setting. An estimated 17.1 million adults in the United States have masked hypertension, and the authors say the new approach would allow early tailored interventions to mitigate the risk of masked hypertension or prevent unnecessary treatment because of white-coat hypertension. “Because of the growing market in blood pressure monitors, the technology and accuracy of monitors is expected to improve even more,” Dr. Giannouchos said. “If these technologies are properly used, they can improve patients’ quality of life and health outcomes at a justified level of cost.”

The findings align with previous research that synthesized costs and benefits of self-monitoring methods across various diseases and settings.

“Future work is needed to compare these alternatives directly from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and to provide clinicians, stakeholders, and patients with more evidence to prioritize specific home-based BP programs,” the authors wrote.

This research was supported by the Texas A&M President’s Office X-grant initiative, National Science Foundation PATHS-UP, and Population Informatics Lab. A study coauthor reported grants from National Science Foundation during the conduct of the study.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.