Cardiology News

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women's Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women's Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

Investigational muvalaplin (Eli Lilly), the first oral therapy being developed to lower lipoprotein (a) levels, was shown to reduce levels in a phase 1 trial, with no safety concerns, researchers report.

In a separate phase 2 study, olpasiran (Amgen), which is given by injection, lowered Lp(a) levels for nearly 1 year after the last dose, also without safety concerns, in a phase 2 trial extension.

Researchers presented these findings in two late breaking science sessions at the recent annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The muvalaplin trial was also simultaneously published online as a preliminary communication in JAMA.
 

Phase 1 trial of muvalaplin

Epidemiologic and genetic evidence suggests that Lp(a) has a causal role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, Stephen J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, and colleagues wrote.

In initial studies, Lp(a) was reduced by approximately 80% with an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen, Ionis) and by up to 98% with RNA interference (olpasiran) – both injectable therapies.

Muvalaplin is a small molecule that disrupts the binding of apolipoprotein(a) to apo B100 that forms Lp(a), said Dr. Nicholls, from Monash University and Victoria Heart Institute, both in Melbourne.

In this first-in-human, phase 1 trial in 114 healthy individuals, Lp(a) levels were reduced up to 65% following daily administration of 100-800 mg of muvalaplin for 14 days, without safety or tolerability concerns or significant effects on plasminogen, a homologous protein, he said in an interview.

Approximately 20% of the population have high LP(a) levels, Dr. Nicholls noted.

“We saw in the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor trials that Lp(a) lowering is associated with benefit, but those agents substantially lower LDL cholesterol,” he said. “Now, here for the first time we have an oral agent” that lowers Lp(a) levels. However, “we will still need to determine if this leads to a reduction in cardiovascular risk,” in longer and larger trials.

The researchers randomly assigned healthy adults aged 18-69 with a BMI of 30 kg/m² or less, into two groups.

The 55 participants in the single ascending dose group were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (1 mg, 10 mg, 30 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg) or matching placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 29 years; 64% were female and 91% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 10.3 mg/dL.

The 59 participants in the multiple ascending dose group, who were required to have Lp(a) of at least 30 mg/dL, were randomly assigned to receive muvalaplin (30 mg, 100 mg, 300 mg, 500 mg, or 800 mg) or placebo daily for 14 days. They had a mean age of 32; 58% were female and 80% were White. Their median Lp(a) level was 58.4 mg/dL.

The maximum placebo-adjusted Lp(a) reduction was 63% to 65%, which occurred on days 14 and 15, in participants who received doses of at least 100 mg.

The levels returned to baseline by day 29 for the 30-mg dose, day 43 for the 100-mg dose, and day 64 for the 300- to 800-mg doses. 

There were no deaths or serious adverse events. Treatment-associated adverse events were reported by 62% in the single ascending dose group and by 80% in the multiple ascending dose group; these were mild and transient and included headache, fatigue, and vomiting.  

Muvalaplin had no significant effects on LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, or total cholesterol or apo B100, and did not significantly affect plasminogen levels or activity.

The team is currently conducting the phase 2 KRAKEN trial. They plan to enroll 233 patients aged 40 and older with elevated Lp(a) levels (≥ 175 nmol/L) and high risk for cardiovascular events. The primary outcome is change in Lp(a) levels at 12 weeks, and the estimated primary trial completion is this coming January.
 

OCEAN (a)-DOSE extended study of olpasiran

In a separate presentation, Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH, reported findings from an extension of the phase 2 trial of olpasiran in patients with atherosclerotic CVD and elevated Lp(a).

courtesy Brigham and Women's Hospital

Olpasiran is a small interfering RNA (siRNA) molecule directed to the liver that prevents the assembly of Lp(a).

Dr. O’Donoghue, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, presented the main results from the OCEAN(a) DOSE (TIMI 67) study of olpasiran, at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, and the trial was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The trial included 281 patients with established atherosclerotic CVD and Lp(a) greater than 150 nmol/L (60 mg/dL). Participants were randomly assigned to one of four doses of olpasiran (10 mg, 75 mg, or 225 mg every 12 weeks, or 225 mg every 24 weeks) or matching placebo, administered subcutaneously.

At 36 weeks, doses of 75 mg or more of olpasiran every 12 weeks led to reductions of more than 95% in levels of Lp(a).

The extension study aimed to examine the effects of olpasiran on levels of the oxidized phospholipids on apolipoprotein B100 (OxPL-apoB) and on levels of Lp(a), as well as safety, after the last administered dose.

The minimum extended off-treatment period was 72 weeks from randomization (in 276 patients). Complete follow-up was a median of 86 weeks (50 weeks after the last administered dose).

The study showed that “olpasiran is an siRNA that robustly lowers Lp(a) levels” and “leads to a marked and durable reduction” in proatherogenic OxPL-apoB, Dr. O’Donoghue reported.

Patients on doses of at least 75 mg every 12 weeks “sustained around a 40%-50% placebo-adjusted reduction in Lp(a) levels close to 1 year after the last dose.”

The long-term clinical efficacy and safety of olpasiran are being further evaluated in the ongoing phase 3 OCEAN(a)-Outcomes trial which has as an estimated enrollment of 6000 and projected completion in December 2026.

These are “exciting” results, and “we’re all waiting with bated breath for more news,” said session cochairperson Louise Bowman, MD, University of Oxford (England).

In reply to questions from the audience, Dr. O’Donoghue said that the only adverse events that were imbalanced during the on-treatment phase were injection-site reactions and localized hypersensitivity reactions, which were not reported during the off-treatment period. There was also no evidence of a proinflammatory increase in phospholipids, or of a rebound effect on Lp(a) levels after stopping olpasiran.

The muvalaplin study was funded by Eli Lilly. Dr. Nicholls reported numerous conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. O’Donoghue reported receiving research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Novartis; consulting with Amgen and Novartis; and serving as a data and safety monitor for AstraZeneca and Janssen.

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

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A newly published scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on the impact of aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on the risk for dementia and hemorrhagic stroke.

“The brain is the body’s most cholesterol-rich organ, and some have questioned whether aggressive LDL-C lowering induces abnormal structural and functional changes,” the writing group, led by Larry Goldstein, MD, chair, department of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, points out.

The 39-page AHA scientific statement, titled “Aggressive LDL-C Lowering and the Brain: Impact on Risk for Dementia and Hemorrhagic Stroke,” was published online in the journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

The objective was to evaluate contemporary evidence that either supports or refutes the conclusion that aggressive LDL-C lowering or lipid lowering exerts toxic effects on the brain, leading to cognitive impairment or dementia or hemorrhagic stroke.

The eight-member writing group used literature reviews, references to published clinical and epidemiology studies, clinical and public health guidelines, authoritative statements, and expert opinion to summarize the latest evidence and identify gaps in current knowledge.

They reached four main conclusions:

• First, the available data “consistently” show that LDL-C lowering reduces the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events in high-risk groups.
• Second, although some older retrospective, case-control, and prospective longitudinal studies suggest that statins and LDL-C lowering are associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, the “preponderance” of observational studies and data from randomized trials do not support this conclusion, at least among trials with median follow-up of up to 6 years. The group says additional studies are needed to ensure cognitive safety over longer periods of time. For now, contemporary guidelines recommending the risk-stratified attainment of lipid-lowering goals are “reasonable,” they conclude.
• Third, the risk for hemorrhagic stroke associated with statin therapy in patients without a history of cerebrovascular disease is “small and consistently nonsignificant.” They found no evidence that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe (Zetia) increases bleeding risk. Further, there is “no indication” that patients or populations with lifelong low LDL-C have enhanced vulnerability to hemorrhagic stroke, and there is “little evidence” that achieving very low levels of LDL-C increases that risk. What is clear, the writing group says, is that lower LDL-C levels correlate with lower risk of overall stroke and stroke recurrence, mostly related to a reduction in ischemic stroke. “Concern about hemorrhagic stroke risk should not deter a clinician from treating LDL-C to guideline-recommended risk-stratified targets,” the writing group says.
• Fourth, the group notes that data reflecting the risk of hemorrhagic stroke with statin therapy among patients with a history of hemorrhagic stroke are not robust. PCSK9 inhibitors have not been adequately tested in patients with prior intracerebral hemorrhage. Lipid lowering in these populations requires more focused study.

The research had no commercial funding. A list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A radiologist who claims he was forced to resign after requesting to work from home has settled his discrimination lawsuit with a New York hospital.

Although the case was resolved without a definitive win, legal analysts say the complaint raises important questions about whether some physicians have the right to work from home.

Since the pandemic, employers across the country have become more accepting of professionals working remotely. But are some doctors legally entitled to the accommodation? And if so, how do physicians prove the allowance is reasonable for their circumstances?

Richard Heiden, MD, sued New York City Health and Hospitals in 2020, claiming discrimination and retaliation violations under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law. Dr. Heiden, who has ulcerative colitis, had asked to work off-site during the start of the pandemic, but the hospital denied his accommodation request. Shortly later, administrators accused Dr. Heiden of poor performance and requested he resign or administrators would terminate him, according to his lawsuit.

Attorneys for New York City Health and Hospitals contended that Dr. Heiden was a poorly performing radiologist who was undergoing a performance review at the time of his accommodation request. The radiologist’s departure was related to the results of the review and had nothing to do with his disability or accommodation request, according to the hospital.

The undisclosed settlement ends a 3-year court battle between Dr. Heiden and the hospital corporation.

In an email, Laura Williams, an attorney for the hospital corporation, said that “the settlement was in the best interest of all parties.”

Dr. Heiden and his attorneys also did not respond to requests for comment.

A critical piece to the puzzle is understanding who is protected under the ADA and is therefore entitled to reasonable accommodations, said Doron Dorfman, JSD, an associate professor at Seton Hall University Law School in Newark, N.J., who focuses on disability law.

A common misconception is that only physicians with a physical disability are “disabled,” he said. However, under the law, a disabled individual is anyone with a physical or mental impairment – including mental illness – that limits major life activities; a person with a history of such impairment; or a person who is perceived by others as having an impairment.

“The law is much broader than many people think,” he said. “I think a lot of people don’t think about those with invisible disabilities, such as people with allergies, those who are immunocompromised, those with chronic illnesses. A lot of people don’t see themselves as disabled, and a lot of employers don’t see them as disabled.”

Working from home has not historically been considered a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA, Mr. Dorfman said. However, that appears to be changing.

“There has been a sea change,” Mr. Dorfman said. “The question is coming before the courts more frequently, and recent legal decisions show judges may be altering their views on the subject.”
 

What led to the doctor’s lawsuit?

Dr. Heiden, a longtime radiologist, had practiced at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center for about a year when he requested to work remotely. (Lincoln is operated by New York City Health and Hospitals.) At the time, the governor of New York had ordered a statewide lockdown because of COVID-19, and Dr. Heiden expressed concern that his ulcerative colitis made him a high-risk individual for the virus, according to court documents.

In his March 22, 2020, request, Dr. Heiden said that, except for fluoroscopy, his job could be done entirely from his home, according to a district court summary of the case. He also offered to pay for any costs associated with the remote work setup.

Around the same time, New York City Health and Hospitals permitted its facilities to issue a limited number of workstations to radiologists to facilitate remote work in the event of COVID-related staffing shortages. Administrators were in the process of acquiring remote radiology workstations and determining which radiologists at Lincoln would receive them, according to the case summary.

On March 24, the chair of radiology at Lincoln met with Dr. Heiden to review the results of a recent focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). An FPPE refers to an intensive review of an expansive selection of patient cases handled by the subject physician. During the meeting, the chair that claimed Dr. Heiden was a poor performer and was accurate in his assessments 93.8% of the time, which was below the hospital’s 97% threshold, according to Dr. Heiden’s lawsuit. Dr. Heiden disagreed with the results, and the two engaged in several more meetings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was forwarded to other administrators. In an email introduced into court evidence, the chair indicated he did not support the accommodation, writing that Dr. Heiden’s “skill set does not meet the criteria for the initial installations” of the workstations.

On March 26, 2020, the chair allegedly asked Dr. Heiden to either resign or he would be terminated and reported to the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Four days later, Dr. Heiden learned that his accommodation request had been denied. He resigned on April 2, 2020.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Heiden claimed that the hospital discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of ADA by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment and failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The defendants, who included the radiology chair, did not dispute that Dr. Heiden was asked to resign or that administrators warned termination, but they argued the impetus was his FPPE results and a history of inaccurate interpretations. Other clinicians and physicians had expressed concerns about Dr. Heiden’s “lack of clarity [and] interpretive errors,” according to deposition testimony. The hospital emphasized the FPPE had concluded before Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was made.

New York City Health and Hospitals requested a federal judge dismiss the lawsuit for lack of valid claims. In January 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman allowed the case to proceed, ruling that some of Dr. Heiden’s claims had merit.

“Plaintiff has satisfied his obligation to proffer sufficient evidence to create an inference of retaliatory or discriminatory intent,” Judge Liman wrote in his decision. “[The chair] had not always planned to ask for plaintiff’s resignation based on the results of the FPPE completed on March 10, 2020. The decision to ask for that resignation arose shortly after the request for the accommodation. And there is evidence from which the jury could find that [the chair] was not receptive to making the accommodation.”

A jury trial was scheduled for July 2023, but the parties reached a settlement on May 31, 2023.
 

Is working from home reasonable for physicians?

The widespread swing to remote work in recent years has paved a smoother road for physicians who request the accommodation, said Peter Poullos, MD, clinical associate professor of radiology, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University and founder and cochair of the Stanford Medicine Alliance for Disability Inclusion and Equity.

“There is now a precedent and examples all over that working from home for some is a viable alternative to working in the hospital or a clinic,” Dr. Poullos said. “If a lawyer can point to instances of other people having received the same accommodation, even if the accommodation was given to someone without a disability, it’s much harder for an employer to say: ‘It’s not possible.’ Because clearly, it is.”

A key factor is the employee’s job duties and whether the employee can complete them remotely, said Mr. Dorfman. With physicians, the reasonableness would heavily depend on their specialty.

A radiologist, for example, would probably have a stronger case for performing their duties remotely compared with a surgeon, Dr. Poullos said.

In general, whether an accommodation is reasonable is decided on a case-by-case basis and usually includes reviewing supporting documentation from a medical provider, said Emily Harvey, a Denver-based disability law attorney. Employers are allowed to deny accommodations if they would cause an undue burden to the employer or fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the job or business.

“When it comes to the ADA, and disability rights in general, the analysis is based on the need of the individual,” she said. “Two people with identical diagnoses could need vastly different accommodations to be successful in the same job.”

Mr. Dorfman added that employers are only required to provide an accommodation that is reasonable under the circumstances, whether or not that accommodation meets the preferred request of the employee. For instance, if an immunocompromised physician asked to work from home, but the employer could ensure that all those working around the physician will mask, that could be reasonable enough.

A recent case analysis by Bloomberg Law shows that more courts are siding with employees who request remote work, compared with in past years. Employees who made disability-related remote work requests prevailed in 40% of federal court rulings from 2021 to 2023 versusa success rate of 30% from 2017 to 2019, according to the July 2023 analysis.

The analysis shows that employers still win the majority of the time, but that the gap is closing, Mr. Dorfman said.

In a September 2020 decision, for example, a Massachusetts District Court ruled in favor of an employee with asthma who was precluding from working at home by a behavioral and mental health agency. U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine Robertson said that the manager was entitled to telework as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for 60 days or until further notice. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.

“I think judges are much more used to working from home themselves,” Mr. Dorfman said. “That may affect their sense of accepting remote work as a reasonable accommodation. Their personal experience with it [may] actually inform their view of the topic.”
 

Your accommodation request was denied: Now what?

If you are unsure about your rights under the ADA, a first step is understanding the law’s protections and learning the obligations of your employer. 

Keep in mind that not everyone at your workplace may understand the law and what is required, said Dr. Poullos. When making a request to work from home, ensure that you’re using the right words and asking the right people, he advised. Some physicians, for instance, may only discuss the request with their direct supervisor and give up when the request is denied. “The employee might say, ‘I’ve been dealing with some medical issues and I’m really tired and need to adjust my schedule.’ They don’t mention the word ‘disability,’ they don’t mention the ADA, they don’t mention the word ‘accommodation,’ and so that might not trigger the appropriate response.”

Lisa Meeks, PhD, an expert and researcher in disabilities in medical education, encourages physicians and others to follow the appeals process at their institution if they feel their accommodation request has been unjustly denied.

Research shows that physicians who make accommodation requests rarely escalate denials to an appeal, grievance, or complaint, said Dr. Meeks, cohost of the Docs With Disabilities podcast and director of the Docs With Disabilities Initiative. The initiative aims to use research, education, and stories to drive change in perceptions, disability policy, and procedures in health professions and in biomedical and science education.

If an accommodation cannot be agreed on, doctors can reach out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and file a discrimination charge. The agency will review the case and provide an opinion on whether the charge has merit. The EEOC’s decision is not binding in court, and even if the agency believes the charge has no merit, employees still have the right to sue, he said.

Ms. Harvey added that the EEOC has many resources on its website, and that most states also have civil rights agencies that have additional resources. Every state and U.S. territory also has a protection and advocacy organization that may be able to help. Physicians can also review their state bar to locate and consult with disability rights attorneys.

Although it may seem like an uphill battle to push for an accommodation, it can be worth it in the end, said Michael Argenyi, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Dr. Argenyi, who has hearing loss, was featured on the Docs With Disabilities podcast.

“It’s difficult to ‘rock the boat’ and ask for support from the C-suite for employees with disabilities, or to rearrange a small medical office budget to establish a byline just for accommodations,” Dr. Argenyi said. “Yet, the payoff is worthwhile – patients and fellow colleagues notice commitments to diversity building and inclusion.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A radiologist who claims he was forced to resign after requesting to work from home has settled his discrimination lawsuit with a New York hospital.

Although the case was resolved without a definitive win, legal analysts say the complaint raises important questions about whether some physicians have the right to work from home.

Since the pandemic, employers across the country have become more accepting of professionals working remotely. But are some doctors legally entitled to the accommodation? And if so, how do physicians prove the allowance is reasonable for their circumstances?

Richard Heiden, MD, sued New York City Health and Hospitals in 2020, claiming discrimination and retaliation violations under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law. Dr. Heiden, who has ulcerative colitis, had asked to work off-site during the start of the pandemic, but the hospital denied his accommodation request. Shortly later, administrators accused Dr. Heiden of poor performance and requested he resign or administrators would terminate him, according to his lawsuit.

Attorneys for New York City Health and Hospitals contended that Dr. Heiden was a poorly performing radiologist who was undergoing a performance review at the time of his accommodation request. The radiologist’s departure was related to the results of the review and had nothing to do with his disability or accommodation request, according to the hospital.

The undisclosed settlement ends a 3-year court battle between Dr. Heiden and the hospital corporation.

In an email, Laura Williams, an attorney for the hospital corporation, said that “the settlement was in the best interest of all parties.”

Dr. Heiden and his attorneys also did not respond to requests for comment.

A critical piece to the puzzle is understanding who is protected under the ADA and is therefore entitled to reasonable accommodations, said Doron Dorfman, JSD, an associate professor at Seton Hall University Law School in Newark, N.J., who focuses on disability law.

A common misconception is that only physicians with a physical disability are “disabled,” he said. However, under the law, a disabled individual is anyone with a physical or mental impairment – including mental illness – that limits major life activities; a person with a history of such impairment; or a person who is perceived by others as having an impairment.

“The law is much broader than many people think,” he said. “I think a lot of people don’t think about those with invisible disabilities, such as people with allergies, those who are immunocompromised, those with chronic illnesses. A lot of people don’t see themselves as disabled, and a lot of employers don’t see them as disabled.”

Working from home has not historically been considered a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA, Mr. Dorfman said. However, that appears to be changing.

“There has been a sea change,” Mr. Dorfman said. “The question is coming before the courts more frequently, and recent legal decisions show judges may be altering their views on the subject.”
 

What led to the doctor’s lawsuit?

Dr. Heiden, a longtime radiologist, had practiced at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center for about a year when he requested to work remotely. (Lincoln is operated by New York City Health and Hospitals.) At the time, the governor of New York had ordered a statewide lockdown because of COVID-19, and Dr. Heiden expressed concern that his ulcerative colitis made him a high-risk individual for the virus, according to court documents.

In his March 22, 2020, request, Dr. Heiden said that, except for fluoroscopy, his job could be done entirely from his home, according to a district court summary of the case. He also offered to pay for any costs associated with the remote work setup.

Around the same time, New York City Health and Hospitals permitted its facilities to issue a limited number of workstations to radiologists to facilitate remote work in the event of COVID-related staffing shortages. Administrators were in the process of acquiring remote radiology workstations and determining which radiologists at Lincoln would receive them, according to the case summary.

On March 24, the chair of radiology at Lincoln met with Dr. Heiden to review the results of a recent focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). An FPPE refers to an intensive review of an expansive selection of patient cases handled by the subject physician. During the meeting, the chair that claimed Dr. Heiden was a poor performer and was accurate in his assessments 93.8% of the time, which was below the hospital’s 97% threshold, according to Dr. Heiden’s lawsuit. Dr. Heiden disagreed with the results, and the two engaged in several more meetings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was forwarded to other administrators. In an email introduced into court evidence, the chair indicated he did not support the accommodation, writing that Dr. Heiden’s “skill set does not meet the criteria for the initial installations” of the workstations.

On March 26, 2020, the chair allegedly asked Dr. Heiden to either resign or he would be terminated and reported to the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Four days later, Dr. Heiden learned that his accommodation request had been denied. He resigned on April 2, 2020.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Heiden claimed that the hospital discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of ADA by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment and failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The defendants, who included the radiology chair, did not dispute that Dr. Heiden was asked to resign or that administrators warned termination, but they argued the impetus was his FPPE results and a history of inaccurate interpretations. Other clinicians and physicians had expressed concerns about Dr. Heiden’s “lack of clarity [and] interpretive errors,” according to deposition testimony. The hospital emphasized the FPPE had concluded before Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was made.

New York City Health and Hospitals requested a federal judge dismiss the lawsuit for lack of valid claims. In January 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman allowed the case to proceed, ruling that some of Dr. Heiden’s claims had merit.

“Plaintiff has satisfied his obligation to proffer sufficient evidence to create an inference of retaliatory or discriminatory intent,” Judge Liman wrote in his decision. “[The chair] had not always planned to ask for plaintiff’s resignation based on the results of the FPPE completed on March 10, 2020. The decision to ask for that resignation arose shortly after the request for the accommodation. And there is evidence from which the jury could find that [the chair] was not receptive to making the accommodation.”

A jury trial was scheduled for July 2023, but the parties reached a settlement on May 31, 2023.
 

Is working from home reasonable for physicians?

The widespread swing to remote work in recent years has paved a smoother road for physicians who request the accommodation, said Peter Poullos, MD, clinical associate professor of radiology, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University and founder and cochair of the Stanford Medicine Alliance for Disability Inclusion and Equity.

“There is now a precedent and examples all over that working from home for some is a viable alternative to working in the hospital or a clinic,” Dr. Poullos said. “If a lawyer can point to instances of other people having received the same accommodation, even if the accommodation was given to someone without a disability, it’s much harder for an employer to say: ‘It’s not possible.’ Because clearly, it is.”

A key factor is the employee’s job duties and whether the employee can complete them remotely, said Mr. Dorfman. With physicians, the reasonableness would heavily depend on their specialty.

A radiologist, for example, would probably have a stronger case for performing their duties remotely compared with a surgeon, Dr. Poullos said.

In general, whether an accommodation is reasonable is decided on a case-by-case basis and usually includes reviewing supporting documentation from a medical provider, said Emily Harvey, a Denver-based disability law attorney. Employers are allowed to deny accommodations if they would cause an undue burden to the employer or fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the job or business.

“When it comes to the ADA, and disability rights in general, the analysis is based on the need of the individual,” she said. “Two people with identical diagnoses could need vastly different accommodations to be successful in the same job.”

Mr. Dorfman added that employers are only required to provide an accommodation that is reasonable under the circumstances, whether or not that accommodation meets the preferred request of the employee. For instance, if an immunocompromised physician asked to work from home, but the employer could ensure that all those working around the physician will mask, that could be reasonable enough.

A recent case analysis by Bloomberg Law shows that more courts are siding with employees who request remote work, compared with in past years. Employees who made disability-related remote work requests prevailed in 40% of federal court rulings from 2021 to 2023 versusa success rate of 30% from 2017 to 2019, according to the July 2023 analysis.

The analysis shows that employers still win the majority of the time, but that the gap is closing, Mr. Dorfman said.

In a September 2020 decision, for example, a Massachusetts District Court ruled in favor of an employee with asthma who was precluding from working at home by a behavioral and mental health agency. U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine Robertson said that the manager was entitled to telework as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for 60 days or until further notice. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.

“I think judges are much more used to working from home themselves,” Mr. Dorfman said. “That may affect their sense of accepting remote work as a reasonable accommodation. Their personal experience with it [may] actually inform their view of the topic.”
 

Your accommodation request was denied: Now what?

If you are unsure about your rights under the ADA, a first step is understanding the law’s protections and learning the obligations of your employer. 

Keep in mind that not everyone at your workplace may understand the law and what is required, said Dr. Poullos. When making a request to work from home, ensure that you’re using the right words and asking the right people, he advised. Some physicians, for instance, may only discuss the request with their direct supervisor and give up when the request is denied. “The employee might say, ‘I’ve been dealing with some medical issues and I’m really tired and need to adjust my schedule.’ They don’t mention the word ‘disability,’ they don’t mention the ADA, they don’t mention the word ‘accommodation,’ and so that might not trigger the appropriate response.”

Lisa Meeks, PhD, an expert and researcher in disabilities in medical education, encourages physicians and others to follow the appeals process at their institution if they feel their accommodation request has been unjustly denied.

Research shows that physicians who make accommodation requests rarely escalate denials to an appeal, grievance, or complaint, said Dr. Meeks, cohost of the Docs With Disabilities podcast and director of the Docs With Disabilities Initiative. The initiative aims to use research, education, and stories to drive change in perceptions, disability policy, and procedures in health professions and in biomedical and science education.

If an accommodation cannot be agreed on, doctors can reach out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and file a discrimination charge. The agency will review the case and provide an opinion on whether the charge has merit. The EEOC’s decision is not binding in court, and even if the agency believes the charge has no merit, employees still have the right to sue, he said.

Ms. Harvey added that the EEOC has many resources on its website, and that most states also have civil rights agencies that have additional resources. Every state and U.S. territory also has a protection and advocacy organization that may be able to help. Physicians can also review their state bar to locate and consult with disability rights attorneys.

Although it may seem like an uphill battle to push for an accommodation, it can be worth it in the end, said Michael Argenyi, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Dr. Argenyi, who has hearing loss, was featured on the Docs With Disabilities podcast.

“It’s difficult to ‘rock the boat’ and ask for support from the C-suite for employees with disabilities, or to rearrange a small medical office budget to establish a byline just for accommodations,” Dr. Argenyi said. “Yet, the payoff is worthwhile – patients and fellow colleagues notice commitments to diversity building and inclusion.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A radiologist who claims he was forced to resign after requesting to work from home has settled his discrimination lawsuit with a New York hospital.

Although the case was resolved without a definitive win, legal analysts say the complaint raises important questions about whether some physicians have the right to work from home.

Since the pandemic, employers across the country have become more accepting of professionals working remotely. But are some doctors legally entitled to the accommodation? And if so, how do physicians prove the allowance is reasonable for their circumstances?

Richard Heiden, MD, sued New York City Health and Hospitals in 2020, claiming discrimination and retaliation violations under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law. Dr. Heiden, who has ulcerative colitis, had asked to work off-site during the start of the pandemic, but the hospital denied his accommodation request. Shortly later, administrators accused Dr. Heiden of poor performance and requested he resign or administrators would terminate him, according to his lawsuit.

Attorneys for New York City Health and Hospitals contended that Dr. Heiden was a poorly performing radiologist who was undergoing a performance review at the time of his accommodation request. The radiologist’s departure was related to the results of the review and had nothing to do with his disability or accommodation request, according to the hospital.

The undisclosed settlement ends a 3-year court battle between Dr. Heiden and the hospital corporation.

In an email, Laura Williams, an attorney for the hospital corporation, said that “the settlement was in the best interest of all parties.”

Dr. Heiden and his attorneys also did not respond to requests for comment.

A critical piece to the puzzle is understanding who is protected under the ADA and is therefore entitled to reasonable accommodations, said Doron Dorfman, JSD, an associate professor at Seton Hall University Law School in Newark, N.J., who focuses on disability law.

A common misconception is that only physicians with a physical disability are “disabled,” he said. However, under the law, a disabled individual is anyone with a physical or mental impairment – including mental illness – that limits major life activities; a person with a history of such impairment; or a person who is perceived by others as having an impairment.

“The law is much broader than many people think,” he said. “I think a lot of people don’t think about those with invisible disabilities, such as people with allergies, those who are immunocompromised, those with chronic illnesses. A lot of people don’t see themselves as disabled, and a lot of employers don’t see them as disabled.”

Working from home has not historically been considered a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA, Mr. Dorfman said. However, that appears to be changing.

“There has been a sea change,” Mr. Dorfman said. “The question is coming before the courts more frequently, and recent legal decisions show judges may be altering their views on the subject.”
 

What led to the doctor’s lawsuit?

Dr. Heiden, a longtime radiologist, had practiced at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center for about a year when he requested to work remotely. (Lincoln is operated by New York City Health and Hospitals.) At the time, the governor of New York had ordered a statewide lockdown because of COVID-19, and Dr. Heiden expressed concern that his ulcerative colitis made him a high-risk individual for the virus, according to court documents.

In his March 22, 2020, request, Dr. Heiden said that, except for fluoroscopy, his job could be done entirely from his home, according to a district court summary of the case. He also offered to pay for any costs associated with the remote work setup.

Around the same time, New York City Health and Hospitals permitted its facilities to issue a limited number of workstations to radiologists to facilitate remote work in the event of COVID-related staffing shortages. Administrators were in the process of acquiring remote radiology workstations and determining which radiologists at Lincoln would receive them, according to the case summary.

On March 24, the chair of radiology at Lincoln met with Dr. Heiden to review the results of a recent focused professional practice evaluation (FPPE). An FPPE refers to an intensive review of an expansive selection of patient cases handled by the subject physician. During the meeting, the chair that claimed Dr. Heiden was a poor performer and was accurate in his assessments 93.8% of the time, which was below the hospital’s 97% threshold, according to Dr. Heiden’s lawsuit. Dr. Heiden disagreed with the results, and the two engaged in several more meetings.

Meanwhile, Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was forwarded to other administrators. In an email introduced into court evidence, the chair indicated he did not support the accommodation, writing that Dr. Heiden’s “skill set does not meet the criteria for the initial installations” of the workstations.

On March 26, 2020, the chair allegedly asked Dr. Heiden to either resign or he would be terminated and reported to the New York State Office of Professional Medical Conduct. Four days later, Dr. Heiden learned that his accommodation request had been denied. He resigned on April 2, 2020.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Heiden claimed that the hospital discriminated against him on the basis of his disability in violation of ADA by denying him equal terms and conditions of employment and failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The defendants, who included the radiology chair, did not dispute that Dr. Heiden was asked to resign or that administrators warned termination, but they argued the impetus was his FPPE results and a history of inaccurate interpretations. Other clinicians and physicians had expressed concerns about Dr. Heiden’s “lack of clarity [and] interpretive errors,” according to deposition testimony. The hospital emphasized the FPPE had concluded before Dr. Heiden’s accommodation request was made.

New York City Health and Hospitals requested a federal judge dismiss the lawsuit for lack of valid claims. In January 2023, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman allowed the case to proceed, ruling that some of Dr. Heiden’s claims had merit.

“Plaintiff has satisfied his obligation to proffer sufficient evidence to create an inference of retaliatory or discriminatory intent,” Judge Liman wrote in his decision. “[The chair] had not always planned to ask for plaintiff’s resignation based on the results of the FPPE completed on March 10, 2020. The decision to ask for that resignation arose shortly after the request for the accommodation. And there is evidence from which the jury could find that [the chair] was not receptive to making the accommodation.”

A jury trial was scheduled for July 2023, but the parties reached a settlement on May 31, 2023.
 

Is working from home reasonable for physicians?

The widespread swing to remote work in recent years has paved a smoother road for physicians who request the accommodation, said Peter Poullos, MD, clinical associate professor of radiology, gastroenterology, and hepatology at Stanford (Calif.) University and founder and cochair of the Stanford Medicine Alliance for Disability Inclusion and Equity.

“There is now a precedent and examples all over that working from home for some is a viable alternative to working in the hospital or a clinic,” Dr. Poullos said. “If a lawyer can point to instances of other people having received the same accommodation, even if the accommodation was given to someone without a disability, it’s much harder for an employer to say: ‘It’s not possible.’ Because clearly, it is.”

A key factor is the employee’s job duties and whether the employee can complete them remotely, said Mr. Dorfman. With physicians, the reasonableness would heavily depend on their specialty.

A radiologist, for example, would probably have a stronger case for performing their duties remotely compared with a surgeon, Dr. Poullos said.

In general, whether an accommodation is reasonable is decided on a case-by-case basis and usually includes reviewing supporting documentation from a medical provider, said Emily Harvey, a Denver-based disability law attorney. Employers are allowed to deny accommodations if they would cause an undue burden to the employer or fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the job or business.

“When it comes to the ADA, and disability rights in general, the analysis is based on the need of the individual,” she said. “Two people with identical diagnoses could need vastly different accommodations to be successful in the same job.”

Mr. Dorfman added that employers are only required to provide an accommodation that is reasonable under the circumstances, whether or not that accommodation meets the preferred request of the employee. For instance, if an immunocompromised physician asked to work from home, but the employer could ensure that all those working around the physician will mask, that could be reasonable enough.

A recent case analysis by Bloomberg Law shows that more courts are siding with employees who request remote work, compared with in past years. Employees who made disability-related remote work requests prevailed in 40% of federal court rulings from 2021 to 2023 versusa success rate of 30% from 2017 to 2019, according to the July 2023 analysis.

The analysis shows that employers still win the majority of the time, but that the gap is closing, Mr. Dorfman said.

In a September 2020 decision, for example, a Massachusetts District Court ruled in favor of an employee with asthma who was precluding from working at home by a behavioral and mental health agency. U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine Robertson said that the manager was entitled to telework as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for 60 days or until further notice. The lawsuit was settled in 2021.

“I think judges are much more used to working from home themselves,” Mr. Dorfman said. “That may affect their sense of accepting remote work as a reasonable accommodation. Their personal experience with it [may] actually inform their view of the topic.”
 

Your accommodation request was denied: Now what?

If you are unsure about your rights under the ADA, a first step is understanding the law’s protections and learning the obligations of your employer. 

Keep in mind that not everyone at your workplace may understand the law and what is required, said Dr. Poullos. When making a request to work from home, ensure that you’re using the right words and asking the right people, he advised. Some physicians, for instance, may only discuss the request with their direct supervisor and give up when the request is denied. “The employee might say, ‘I’ve been dealing with some medical issues and I’m really tired and need to adjust my schedule.’ They don’t mention the word ‘disability,’ they don’t mention the ADA, they don’t mention the word ‘accommodation,’ and so that might not trigger the appropriate response.”

Lisa Meeks, PhD, an expert and researcher in disabilities in medical education, encourages physicians and others to follow the appeals process at their institution if they feel their accommodation request has been unjustly denied.

Research shows that physicians who make accommodation requests rarely escalate denials to an appeal, grievance, or complaint, said Dr. Meeks, cohost of the Docs With Disabilities podcast and director of the Docs With Disabilities Initiative. The initiative aims to use research, education, and stories to drive change in perceptions, disability policy, and procedures in health professions and in biomedical and science education.

If an accommodation cannot be agreed on, doctors can reach out the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and file a discrimination charge. The agency will review the case and provide an opinion on whether the charge has merit. The EEOC’s decision is not binding in court, and even if the agency believes the charge has no merit, employees still have the right to sue, he said.

Ms. Harvey added that the EEOC has many resources on its website, and that most states also have civil rights agencies that have additional resources. Every state and U.S. territory also has a protection and advocacy organization that may be able to help. Physicians can also review their state bar to locate and consult with disability rights attorneys.

Although it may seem like an uphill battle to push for an accommodation, it can be worth it in the end, said Michael Argenyi, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester. Dr. Argenyi, who has hearing loss, was featured on the Docs With Disabilities podcast.

“It’s difficult to ‘rock the boat’ and ask for support from the C-suite for employees with disabilities, or to rearrange a small medical office budget to establish a byline just for accommodations,” Dr. Argenyi said. “Yet, the payoff is worthwhile – patients and fellow colleagues notice commitments to diversity building and inclusion.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I’m not the smartest dermatologist in our department. We’re fortunate to have a few super-smarties, you know, the ones who can still recite all the genes in Jean Bolognia’s dermatology textbook and have “Dermpath Bowl Champion” plaques covering their walls. Yet as our chief, I often get requests for a second or third opinion, hoping somehow I’ll discover a diagnosis that others missed. Sometimes they are real diagnostic dilemmas. Oftentimes they’re just itchy.

Kaiser Permanente

Recently an itchy 73-year-old woman came to see me. She had seen several competent dermatologists, had comprehensive workups, and had reasonable, even aggressive, attempts at treating. Not much interesting in her history. Nothing on exam. Cancer workup was negative as was pretty much any autoimmune or allergic cause. Biopsy? Maybe a touch of “dermal hypersensitivity.” She was still upset at being told previously she might have scabies. “Scabies!” she said indignantly. “How could I have scabies? No one has touched this body in nearly 4 years!” That’s interesting, I thought.

The electronic medical record holds a lot of useful information. We spend hours combing through histories, labs, pathology, scans, drugs to search for clues that might help with diagnoses. One tab we hardly visit is demographics. Why should that matter, of course? Age, phone number, and address are typically not contributory. But for this woman there was a bit of data that mattered; I checked right after her remark. Marital status: Widowed. She couldn’t have had scabies because no one touches her. Anymore. As our comprehensive workup did not find a cause nor did treatments mitigate her symptoms, I wondered if loneliness might be a contributing factor. I asked if anyone else was itching, any family, any friends? “No, I live alone. I don’t have anyone.”

Loneliness is a huge health risk. Lacking personal connection has psychological and physical consequences, increasing the risk for depression, cardiovascular disease, and dementia for example. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, it increases the risk for premature death comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Yet, we rarely (ever?) ask people if they’re lonely. In part because we don’t have good treatments. Remedies for loneliness are mostly societal – reaching out to the widowed, creating spaces that encourage connection, organizing events that bring people together. I cannot type any of these into the EMR orders. However, merely mentioning that a patient could be lonely can be therapeutic. They might not recognize its impact or that they have agency to make it better. They also might not see how their lives still have meaning, an important comorbidity of loneliness.

Not long after her appointment was a 63-year-old man who complained of a burning scrotum. He worked as a knife sharpener, setting up a folding table at local groceries and farmers markets. COVID killed most of his gigs. Like the woman who didn’t have scabies, comprehensive workups turned up nothing. And seemingly nothing, including antibiotics, gabapentin, indomethacin, lidocaine, helped. At his last visit, we talked about his condition. We had also talked about the proper way to sharpen a knife. I came in prepared to offer something dramatic this visit, methotrexate, dupilumab? But before I could speak, he opened a recycled plastic grocery bag and dumped out knives of various sizes. Also a small ax. He then proceeded to show me how each knife has to be sharpened in its own way. Before leaving he handed me a well-worn Arkansas sharpening stone. “For you,” he said. I gave him no additional recommendations or treatments. He hasn’t been back to dermatology since.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plenty of perks come along with earning a physician’s salary, but a low tax rate isn’t among them. Medscape’s Physicians and Taxes Report 2023 shows that last year, doctors paid an average of nearly $100,000 in state and federal taxes, and three-quarters of them thought that they were paying too much to Uncle Sam. In most cases, it’s impossible to eliminate that tax bill, but physicians told us they have found ways to minimize it.

“The percentage you have to pay in taxes escalates as you earn more money, and most doctors are at the maximum rate,” says Paul Joseph, a certified public accountant and founder of Joseph & Joseph Tax & Payroll in Williamston, Mich. “So every dollar you can deduct from your income is worth more.”

Here’s a look at the seven top tax breaks physician respondents claimed in our tax report, so you can ensure you’re making the most of the tax strategies available to you. To claim most of these options, you’ll need to itemize your deductions when filing your taxes.
 

Contribute to charity

Claimed by 70% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Anyone.

How it works: If you itemize your taxes, you can deduct the value of cash, securities, or property donations to 501(c)(3) organizations. You’ll need a receipt from the charity and a third-party appraisal for any property donations worth more than $5,000.

Pro tip: Donating stocks that have appreciated in value can deliver additional tax benefits: You get to write off both the value of the contribution and avoid capital gains taxes that you’d face for selling the security.
 

Contribute to a pre-tax 401(k) account

Claimed by 60% of physicians in 2022.

Who’s eligible: Those who work for a company that sponsors a 401(k) plan.

How it works: Contributions to a 401(k) or 403(b) account come directly out of your paycheck, pre-tax, and grow tax-free until you withdraw them in retirement. Many companies offer a match on contributions. In 2023, you can contribute up to $22,500 ($30,000 if you’re age 50 or older) to a 401(k) account.

Pro tip: If you’re maxing out your 401(k) account, you can stash money in other tax-advantaged accounts such as a health savings account (if you have a high-deductible health plan) or an individual retirement account (IRA). Although employees with access to a 401(k) may not get the pre-tax advantage of the IRA contributions, the money will grow tax-free through retirement, and you may have access to additional investment options unavailable in your workplace plan.

“You want to maximize your retirement contributions,” says Mark Steber, the chief tax information officer for Jackson Hewitt Tax Services. “If you’re not taking full advantage of them, you’re probably leaving some tax dollars on the table.”

If you’re self-employed and don’t have access to a workplace plan, there are several options for tax-advantaged retirement savings, including a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k).
 

Deduct interest on a home mortgage

Claimed by 52% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Most homeowners who have a mortgage.

How it works: Homeowners can deduct the interest paid on the first $750,000 of their mortgage. (Those who have had the same mortgage since before December 16, 2007, can deduct interest on the first $1 million of their loan.)

Pro tip: If you purchased a home this year and bought points to reduce the rate, you may be able to deduct the cost of those points on your taxes.

Physicians might also be eligible for other home-related tax benefits, such as for green home improvements under the Inflation Reduction Act or for home equity loans used to improve the value of your home.
 

Write off eligible business expenses

Claimed by 46% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Physicians who own all or a portion of their practice, as well as those who work as consultants or contractors paid with a 1099.

How it works: Doctors who run their business using an LLC or S corporation can itemize the deductions on their Schedule C. There are dozens of deductions that might qualify, including for office space and supplies, medical equipment, uniforms, staff wages and benefits, and state and local tax payments. Physicians who work as consultants can deduct home office expenses, travel costs, and the price of supplies purchased for the job.

“For business expenses, you want to make sure that you’re tracking those expenses on an ongoing basis, rather than trying to reconstruct something at the end of the year from 8 months ago,” Mr. Joseph says. “You want to have a system in place that’s calculating those expenses every single day.”

Pro tip: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 also allows owners of pass-through businesses to deduct up to 20% of their business income.

“Not all physicians will qualify for that, because they are in a service-based business and many of them make too much money, but it’s always a good idea to look at whether that’s something they’re eligible for and make sure that they claim it,” says Eric Bronnenkant, head of tax at New York–based investment company Betterment.
 

Contribute to a 529 college savings plan

Claimed by 27% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Those who live in the 37 states that offer a credit or deduction for 529 plan contributions.

How it works: The rules and amounts that qualify vary significantly by state. Most states offer benefits for contributions to in-state accounts only, whereas others offer a tax break for contributions to any 529 account.

Although there is no federal income tax benefit for contributions to a 529 plan, the money grows tax-free until tapped for qualified education expenses, which include both private primary and high school tuition and college costs. Starting in 2024, up to $35,000 in unused funds can roll over into a Roth IRA for the beneficiary.

“It’s not just about the immediate deduction with a 529 account,” says Brian Copeland, partner and director of financial planning with Hightower Wealth Advisors in St. Louis. “It’s not saving you a lot on day one; it’s more about as that account grows, you don’t have to pay taxes on it along the way, so you’re sheltering it from taxes for the 18 years you’re saving for your kids’ college.”

Pro tip: Even if you live in a state without a state income tax or without a tax break for 529 contributions, opening an account can be a smart financial move. Because you don’t need to choose an in-state plan for the tax breaks, look for one that offers low fees and investment options that you like.
 

Sell investments at a loss

Claimed by 22% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who has sold stocks, mutual funds, or other investments at a loss.

How it works: After selling a security that has lost value, you can deduct the value of that loss on your taxes to offset capital gains in the same year. If you have more losses than gains, you can use the losses to offset up to $3,000 in ordinary income per year. If you have more than $3,000 in losses, you can carry those losses forward to offset future income or capital gains.

Pro tip: In years with a lot of market volatility, such as this one, there’s potential to engage in “tax loss harvesting” in which you intentionally sell securities that have lost value to realize the losses for the tax benefits. Keep in mind that if you sell a security at a loss, you cannot repurchase the same security within 30 days – the IRS sees that as a “wash sale,” which does not qualify for a capital loss for tax purposes.
 

Contribute to a backdoor Roth IRA

Claimed by 20% of physicians.

Who’s eligible: Anyone who wishes to contribute to a Roth IRA but is not allowed to do so because their income is too high.

How it works: High earners typically don’t qualify for contributions to a Roth IRA, in which contributions go in after taxes but grow tax-free and distributions in retirement are also tax-free. But there are no income requirements for making after-tax contributions to a traditional and then converting it to a Roth IRA.

There are, however, complex tax rules for those who also have a traditional IRA that’s funded with pre-tax dollars. If that’s the case, work with a tax pro or financial advisor to determine whether a backdoor Roth conversion is the most tax-efficient approach for your situation.

Pro tip: A growing number of workplace retirement plans now include an option for Roth contributions. There are no income limits on a Roth 401(k), so contributing to that type of an account could be a smart route for taxpayers for whom a backdoor conversion doesn’t make sense.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.

There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.

The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The bottom line is that “routine PPA with low-dose anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI patients is safe, but it does not improve ischemic outcome at 30 days,” Dr. Yan concluded.
 

Objective study

In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.

In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.

Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.

For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.

There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.

For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.

Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).

For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
 

Design flawed?

The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.

“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”

The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.

“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.

He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.

Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.

Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.

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

The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.

There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.

The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The bottom line is that “routine PPA with low-dose anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI patients is safe, but it does not improve ischemic outcome at 30 days,” Dr. Yan concluded.
 

Objective study

In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.

In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.

Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.

For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.

There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.

For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.

Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).

For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
 

Design flawed?

The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.

“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”

The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.

“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.

He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.

Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.

Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.

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

The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.

There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.

The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.

The bottom line is that “routine PPA with low-dose anticoagulation after primary PCI in STEMI patients is safe, but it does not improve ischemic outcome at 30 days,” Dr. Yan concluded.
 

Objective study

In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.

In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.

Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.

For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.

There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.

For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.

Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).

For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
 

Design flawed?

The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.

“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”

The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.

“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.

He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.

Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.

Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Many labels on fish oil supplements make unsubstantiated health claims, and products contain variable daily doses of EPA plus DHA, a cross-sectional study suggests.

Overall, about 74% of more than 2,800 supplements that were examined had labels that made at least one health claim, and only 19% included a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–reviewed qualified health claim (QHC).

©Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

‘Vague statements’

To evaluate health claims made on fish oil supplement labels in the United States and to examine doses of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in commonly available formulations, the investigators analyzed labels on supplements obtained from the National Institutes of Health Dietary Supplement Label Database.

The main outcomes were the frequency and types of health claims made on the labels, including use of an FDA-reviewed QHC versus a structure/function claim and the organ system referenced, as well as the total daily doses in combined EPA and DHA supplements from leading manufacturers and retailers.

QHCs are statements regarding a supplement’s or food’s potential to treatment or prevent disease. Such claims undergo evidence review by the FDA and include qualifying language that reflects lack of scientific consensus or uncertainty.

An example: “Consuming EPA and DHA combined may reduce the risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] by lowering blood pressure. However, FDA has concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and inconclusive. One serving of [name of the food or dietary supplement] provides [ ] gram(s) of EPA and DHA.”

By contrast, structure/function claims “describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function in humans” but do not state that the supplement prevents, treats, or cures any disease. Such a claim “does not require any mitigating language regarding potential scientific uncertainty of the statement.”

Structure/function claims commonly state that the supplement “maintains,” “supports,” or “promotes” the function of certain organs. Examples are “promotes heart health” and “supports heart, mind and mood.”

Among 2,819 fish oil supplements, 2,082 (73.9%) made at least one health claim. Of these, only 399 (19.2%) used a QHC; the rest made only structure/function claims. In addition to heart-health claims, many fish oil supplements also have labels that make claims implying benefit to other organ systems, such as brain/mental health, joint health, and eye health – despite a lack of data from randomized clinical trials that support benefit.

The dose analysis of 255 fish oil supplements across 16 major brands found “substantial variability” in the daily dose of EPA (median interquartile range, 340 [135-647] mg/d), DHA (median IQR, 270 [140-500] mg/d), and total EPA+DHA (median IQR, 600 [300-1,100] mg/d).

Twenty-four (9.4%) of the supplements contained a daily dose of 2 g or more EPA+DHA.

“Significant heterogeneity exists in the daily dose of EPA+DHA in available supplements, leading to potential variability in safety and efficacy between supplements,” the authors conclude. “Increasing regulation of dietary supplement labeling may be needed to prevent consumer misinformation.”

Dr. Navar added, “We now need to understand what consumers are taking away from vague statements like ‘promotes brain health’ or ‘supports joint function’ – and test what language we can use to accurately describe the state of the science around fish oil and heart health.”
 

Enthusiasm vs. evidence

“I agree with these concerns and think that the enthusiasm for these supplements outpaces the evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials,” JoAnn E. Manson, MD, MPH, DrPH, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “Results of the observational studies have tended to be much more favorable than the randomized clinical trials.

“The labels can be very misleading to the general public,” she noted. “People are confronted with a dizzying array of dietary supplements, many of which include structure/function claims that require minimal, if any, evidence of efficacy. Clinicians should emphasize with patients that a dietary supplement will never be a substitute for a heart-healthy diet and that many supplements are not helpful for people who already follow a healthy diet,” she said.

The VITAL trial, for which Dr. Manson was principal investigator, showed that supplementation with n-3 fatty acids did not lead to a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events or cancer, compared with placebo.

A subgroup analysis showed that 1 g/d conferred a 20% reduction in major events only for participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week, Dr. Manson said.

Regarding supplement labels, clinicians should recommend that patients look for a U.S. Pharmacopoeia seal or a seal from the National Science Foundation or ConsumerLab, she advised. These seals ensure that the product has been audited for purity and consistency of content and that the dose in the capsule is consistent with what is on the label.

Dr. Manson also would like to see labels explain that most of the products have not been reviewed by the FDA. “Many members of the general public are misled by these labels into thinking that they’re going to receive health benefits. They’re spending a lot of money on supplements that likely provide no benefit and may even be associated with increased risks.”

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Navar has received grants from BMS, Esperion, Amgen, and Janssen and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, BMS, Esperion, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Silence Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, New Amsterdam, and Pfizer outside the submitted work and serves as deputy editor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking a patient’s blood pressure while the patient is lying down may yield more information about their cardiovascular risk than taking the reading while the patient is sitting upright, new preliminary research suggests.

An analysis of data from a long-running Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study of more than 11,000 adults showed that those who had hypertension while supine were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) independently of their having hypertension while seated.

“If blood pressure is only measured while people are seated upright, cardiovascular disease risk may be missed if not measured also while they are lying supine on their backs,” lead investigator Duc M. Giao, a researcher and a fourth-year medical student at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in a news release.

Mr. Giao presented the findings at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions.
 

Take seated and supine BP in clinic?

Hypertension while asleep is strongly associated with CVD and death, but whether hypertension detected in clinic while the patient is lying flat is a risk factor for CVD independently of the patient’s BP while seated remains unclear.

To investigate, Mr. Giao and colleagues reviewed health data for 11,369 adults (mean age, 54 years; 56% women; 25% Black persons) from the longitudinal ARIC study. None had a history of coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), or stroke at baseline.

As part of the study, data on supine and seated BP were obtained during the enrollment period at ARIC visit 1, which took place between 1987 and 1989. Both seated and supine hypertension were defined as systolic BP ≥ 130 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mm Hg.

The data revealed that 16% of those without seated hypertension had supine hypertension, while 74% of those with seated hypertension had supine hypertension.

Despite adjusting for seated hypertension, during a median follow-up of 25-28 years, supine hypertension was associated with an increased risk for incident CHD (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-1.76), HF (aHR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.68-2.01), stroke (aHR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.63-2.13), fatal CHD (aHR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.84-2.59), and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.52).

The results did not differ by antihypertensive medication use (P > .05).

For patients who had hypertension while supine but not while seated, elevations in risk were similar to those of peers who had hypertension while both seated and supine.

“Our findings suggest people with known risk factors for heart disease and stroke may benefit from having their blood pressure checked while lying flat on their backs,” Mr. Giao said in the conference news release.

“Efforts to manage blood pressure during daily life may help lower blood pressure while sleeping. Future research should compare supine blood pressure measurements in the clinic with overnight measurements,” Mr. Giao added.
 

Busy clinical practice

In a comment, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, clinical chair for the conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association, said, “This finding highlights the importance of sustained control of BP in all body positions.”

She noted that many population-based studies have shown that nighttime BP independently predicts CV outcomes. “It’s unclear whether the timing of BP measurement (night vs. day) or the position (as most people sleep in supine position at night) explains this phenomenon.”

The study by Mr. Giao and colleagues suggests that “supine BP may be one explanation, as it has as much impact on long-term CV outcome as seated BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

However, “in busy clinical practice, it is impossible to do both seated and supine, as well as standing BP,” said Dr. Vongpatanasin.

“Additional studies are needed to determine what is considered to be the cutoff for normal supine BP and how to incorporate it in management of hypertension,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. Mr. Giao and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research hints at the possibility that cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a cause of spontaneous brain hemorrhage, can be transmitted via blood transfusion, raising the risk for spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in transfusion recipients.

In an exploratory analysis, patients receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, and were assumed to have CAA, were at a significantly increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH themselves.

“This may suggest a transfusion-transmissible agent associated with some types of spontaneous ICH, although the findings may be susceptible to selection bias and residual confounding, and further research is needed to investigate if transfusion transmission of CAA might explain this association,” the investigators noted.

“We do not think that the findings motivate a change in practice, and we should not let these results discourage otherwise indicated blood transfusion,” said lead author Jingcheng Zhao, MD, PhD, with Karolinska University Hospital Solna, Stockholm.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
 

Novel finding

Recent evidence suggests that CAA exhibits “prion-like” transmissivity, with reports of transmission through cadaveric pituitary hormone contaminated with amyloid-beta and tau protein, dura mater grafts, and possibly neurosurgical instruments.

CAA, which is characterized by the deposition of amyloid protein in the brain, is the second most common cause of spontaneous ICH. 

The researchers hypothesized that transfusion transmission of CAA may manifest through an increased risk for spontaneous ICH among transfusion recipients given blood from a donor with spontaneous ICH. To explore this hypothesis, they analyzed national registry data from Sweden and Denmark for ICH in recipients of red blood cell transfusion from donors who themselves had ICH over the years after their blood donations, with the assumption that donors with two or more ICHs would likely have CAA.

The cohort included nearly 760,000 individuals in Sweden (median age, 65 years; 59% women) and 330,000 in Denmark (median age, 64 years; 58% women), with a median follow-up of 5.8 and 6.1 years, respectively.

Receiving red blood cell transfusions from donors who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing spontaneous ICH, compared with receiving a transfusion from donors without subsequent ICH (hazard ratio, 2.73; P < .001 in the Swedish cohort and HR, 2.32; P = .04 in the Danish cohort).

“The observed increased risk of spontaneous ICH associated with receiving a red blood cell transfusion from a donor who later developed multiple spontaneous ICHs, corresponding to a 30-year cumulative incidence difference of 2.3%, is a novel finding,” the researchers wrote.

There was no increase in post-transfusion ICH risk among recipients whose donors had a single post–blood-donation ICH.

The findings were robust to several of the sensitivity analyses.

A “negative” control analysis of post-transfusion ischemic stroke (instead of ICH) found no increased risk among recipients of blood from donors who had single or multiple ICHs.

This study provides “exploratory evidence of possible transfusion-transmission of a factor that causes ICHs, but more research is needed to confirm and to understand the mechanism,” said Dr. Zhao.

The researchers noted that they did not directly assess CAA but expect it would be more common among donors who develop multiple spontaneous ICHs, “as CAA-related ICH has been reported to have a 7-fold increase for recurrent ICHs, compared with non–CAA-related ICH.”
 

Worrisome finding or false alarm?

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Greenberg, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said there are “good reasons to treat the possibility of CAA transmission via blood transfusion seriously – and good reasons to remain skeptical, at least for the present.”

“Powerful” arguments in support of the findings include the robust study methodology and the “striking” similarity in results from the two registries, which argues against a chance finding. Another is the negative control with ischemic stroke as the outcome, which argues against unsuspected confounding-causing associations with all types of stroke, Dr. Greenberg noted.

Arguments for remaining “unconvinced” of the association center on the weakness of evidence for a plausible biological mechanism for the finding, he points out. Another is the short-time course of ICHs after blood transfusion, which is “quite challenging to explain,” Dr. Greenberg said. Nearly half of the ICHs among blood recipients occurred within 5 years of transfusion, which is “dramatically” faster than the 30- to 40-year interval reported between neurosurgical exposure to cadaveric tissue and first ICH, he added.

Another related “mechanistic reservation” is the plausibility that a transmissible species of amyloid-beta could travel from blood to brain in sufficient quantities to trigger advanced CAA or Alzheimer disease pathology, he wrote.

He added the current study leaves him “squarely at the corner of anxiety and skepticism.”

With more than 10 million units of blood transfused in the United States each year, even a modest increase in risk for future brain hemorrhages or dementia conferred by “an uncommon – but as of now undetectable – donor trait would represent a substantial public health concern,” Dr. Greenberg wrote.

“From the standpoint of scientific plausibility, however, even this well-conducted analysis is at risk of representing a false alarm,” he cautioned.

Looking ahead, Dr. Greenberg said one clear direction is independent replication, ideally with datasets in which donor and recipient dementia can be reliably ascertained to assess the possibility of Alzheimer’s disease as well as CAA transmissibility.

“The other challenge is for experimental biologists to consider the alternative possibility of transfusion-related acceleration of downstream steps in the CAA-ICH pathway, such as the vessel remodeling by which amyloid beta–laden vessels proceed to rupture and bleed.”

“The current study is not yet a reason for alarm, certainly not a reason to avoid otherwise indicated blood transfusion, but it is a strong call for more scientific digging,” Dr. Greenberg concluded.

The study was funded by grants from the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Zhao and Dr. Greenberg report no relevant financial relationships.

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