User login
Even small changes in fitness tied to lower mortality risk
Even relatively small changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with “considerable” impact on clinical symptoms and mortality risk among individuals with and without cardiovascular disease, new observational data in United States veterans suggest.
“We had a few surprises,” Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N. J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “First, the mortality risk was greatly attenuated in those who were moderate- and high-fit at baseline, despite a decline in fitness over time. In fact, in those with no CVD, the risk was not significantly elevated even when CRF declined by at least one MET [metabolic equivalent of task] for the moderate-fit and two or more METs for the high-fit group.”
“Second,” he said, “Our findings suggest that the impact of CRF on human health is not ephemeral, but rather carries a certain protection over time. Third, the changes in CRF necessary to impact mortality risk are relatively small (> 1.0 METs). This has a substantial clinical and public health significance.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
CRF up, mortality risk down
Dr. Kokkinos and colleagues analyzed data from 93,060 U.S. veterans; of these, 95% were men (mean age, 61.4 years) and 5% were women (mean age, 57.1 years). Overall, 72% of participants were White; 19.8%, African American; 5.2%, Hispanic; 1.9%, Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian; and 1.2%, unknown.
Participants were assigned to age-specific fitness quartiles based on peak METs achieved on a baseline exercise treadmill test (ETT). Each CRF quartile was stratified based on CRF changes (increase, decrease, no change) on the final ETT, with at least two ETT assessments at least 1 year apart.
The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (663,522 person-years), during which 18,302 deaths (19.7%) occurred, for an average annual mortality rate of 27.6 events per 1,000 person-years.
CRF was unchanged in 25.1% of the cohort, increased in 29.3%, and decreased in 45.6%. The trend was similar for those with and without CVD.
Significant differences were seen in all variables across CRF categories. In general, body weight, body mass index, CVD risk factors, and overall disease burden were progressively more unfavorable for those in the lowest CRF categories.
Conversely, medication use was progressively higher among those in low CRF categories.
After adjustment, higher CRF was inversely related to mortality risk for the entire cohort, with and without CVD. Cumulative survival rates across CRF categories declined progressively with increased fitness.
For patients with CVD (hazard ratio, 1.11), other significant predictors of all-cause mortality for patients were age (HR, 1.07), body mass index (HR, 0.98), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.85), smoking (HR, 1.57), type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.42), hypertension (HR, 1.39), and cancers (HR, 1.37).
Generally, changes in CRF of at least 1.0 MET were associated with inverse and proportionate changes in mortality risk, regardless of baseline CRF status. For example, they note, a CRF decline of > 2.0 METs was associated with a 74% increased mortality risk for low-fit individuals with CVD, and a 69% increase for those without CVD.
A second analysis was done after excluding patients whose CRF declined and who died within 2 years of their last ETT, to account for the possibility that higher mortality rates and CRF declines were consequences of underlying disease (reverse causality). The association between changes in CRF and mortality risk persisted and remained similar to that observed in the entire cohort.
The authors add, “It is noteworthy that CRF increased by at least 1 MET in approximately 29% of the participants in the current study and decreased in approximately 46% of participants. This finding underscores the need to promote physical activity to maintain or increase CRF levels in middle-aged and older individuals.”
“Our findings make a persuasive argument that CRF is a strong and independent determinant of all-cause mortality risk, independent of genetic factors,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “We know that CRF is determined to some degree by genetic factors. However, improvements in aerobic capacity or CRF over time are largely the outcomes of regular engagement in aerobic activities of adequate intensity and volume.”
“Conversely,” he said, “a decline in CRF is likely the result of sedentary behavior, the onset of a chronic condition, or aging.”
If genetics were the sole contributor to mortality risk, then changes in CRF would not influence mortality risk, he concluded.
CRF impact “woefully underestimated”
Barry A. Franklin, PhD, past chair of both the American Heart Association’s Council on Physical Activity and Metabolism and the National Advocacy Committee, said the study substantiates previous smaller studies and is a “seminal” work.
“CRF is woefully underestimated as an index of health outcomes and survival,” said Dr. Franklin, director of preventive cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at Beaumont Health in Royal Oak, Mich. “Moderate to vigorous physical activity should be regularly promoted by the medical community.”
Dr. Franklin’s recent review, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, provides evidence for other exercise benefits that clinicians may not be aware of, he noted. These include:
- Each 1 MET increase in CRF is generally associated with approximately 16% reduction in mortality.
- At any given risk factor profile or coronary calcium score, unfit people have 2-3 times the mortality as their fit counterparts.
- Fitness is inversely related to annual health care costs (each 1 MET increase in CRF is associated with approximately 6% lower annual health care costs).
- Physically active people hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes have better short-term outcomes (likely because of a phenomenon called ‘exercise preconditioning’).
- Fit people who undergo elective or emergent surgical procedures have better outcomes.
- Regular physical activity is a common characteristic in population subsets who routinely live into their 90s and to 100+.
Dr. Franklin had this advice for clinicians seeking to promote CRF increases of 1 MET or more among patients: “Sedentary people who embark on a walking program, who over time increase their walking speed to 3 mph or faster, invariably show at least a 1 MET increase in CRF during subsequent peak or symptom-limited treadmill testing.”
“Another general rule is that if an exercise program decreases heart rate at a given or fixed workload by about 10 beats per minute [bpm], the same treadmill workload that initially was accomplished at a heart rate of 120 bpm is now being accomplished at a heart rate of 110 bpm,” likely resulting in about a 1 MET increase in fitness.
“Accordingly,” he added, “a 20-bpm decrease would suggest a 2 MET increase in fitness!”
In a related editorial, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Ball State University, Muncie, Ind. and colleagues, write, “We agree with and believe the conclusion, reached by Kokkinos et al., bears repeating. We (again) call on both clinicians and public health professionals to adopt CRF as a key health indicator.”
“This should be done by coupling routine assessments of CRF with continued advocacy for promoting physical activity as an essential healthy lifestyle behavior,” they write.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Even relatively small changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with “considerable” impact on clinical symptoms and mortality risk among individuals with and without cardiovascular disease, new observational data in United States veterans suggest.
“We had a few surprises,” Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N. J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “First, the mortality risk was greatly attenuated in those who were moderate- and high-fit at baseline, despite a decline in fitness over time. In fact, in those with no CVD, the risk was not significantly elevated even when CRF declined by at least one MET [metabolic equivalent of task] for the moderate-fit and two or more METs for the high-fit group.”
“Second,” he said, “Our findings suggest that the impact of CRF on human health is not ephemeral, but rather carries a certain protection over time. Third, the changes in CRF necessary to impact mortality risk are relatively small (> 1.0 METs). This has a substantial clinical and public health significance.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
CRF up, mortality risk down
Dr. Kokkinos and colleagues analyzed data from 93,060 U.S. veterans; of these, 95% were men (mean age, 61.4 years) and 5% were women (mean age, 57.1 years). Overall, 72% of participants were White; 19.8%, African American; 5.2%, Hispanic; 1.9%, Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian; and 1.2%, unknown.
Participants were assigned to age-specific fitness quartiles based on peak METs achieved on a baseline exercise treadmill test (ETT). Each CRF quartile was stratified based on CRF changes (increase, decrease, no change) on the final ETT, with at least two ETT assessments at least 1 year apart.
The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (663,522 person-years), during which 18,302 deaths (19.7%) occurred, for an average annual mortality rate of 27.6 events per 1,000 person-years.
CRF was unchanged in 25.1% of the cohort, increased in 29.3%, and decreased in 45.6%. The trend was similar for those with and without CVD.
Significant differences were seen in all variables across CRF categories. In general, body weight, body mass index, CVD risk factors, and overall disease burden were progressively more unfavorable for those in the lowest CRF categories.
Conversely, medication use was progressively higher among those in low CRF categories.
After adjustment, higher CRF was inversely related to mortality risk for the entire cohort, with and without CVD. Cumulative survival rates across CRF categories declined progressively with increased fitness.
For patients with CVD (hazard ratio, 1.11), other significant predictors of all-cause mortality for patients were age (HR, 1.07), body mass index (HR, 0.98), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.85), smoking (HR, 1.57), type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.42), hypertension (HR, 1.39), and cancers (HR, 1.37).
Generally, changes in CRF of at least 1.0 MET were associated with inverse and proportionate changes in mortality risk, regardless of baseline CRF status. For example, they note, a CRF decline of > 2.0 METs was associated with a 74% increased mortality risk for low-fit individuals with CVD, and a 69% increase for those without CVD.
A second analysis was done after excluding patients whose CRF declined and who died within 2 years of their last ETT, to account for the possibility that higher mortality rates and CRF declines were consequences of underlying disease (reverse causality). The association between changes in CRF and mortality risk persisted and remained similar to that observed in the entire cohort.
The authors add, “It is noteworthy that CRF increased by at least 1 MET in approximately 29% of the participants in the current study and decreased in approximately 46% of participants. This finding underscores the need to promote physical activity to maintain or increase CRF levels in middle-aged and older individuals.”
“Our findings make a persuasive argument that CRF is a strong and independent determinant of all-cause mortality risk, independent of genetic factors,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “We know that CRF is determined to some degree by genetic factors. However, improvements in aerobic capacity or CRF over time are largely the outcomes of regular engagement in aerobic activities of adequate intensity and volume.”
“Conversely,” he said, “a decline in CRF is likely the result of sedentary behavior, the onset of a chronic condition, or aging.”
If genetics were the sole contributor to mortality risk, then changes in CRF would not influence mortality risk, he concluded.
CRF impact “woefully underestimated”
Barry A. Franklin, PhD, past chair of both the American Heart Association’s Council on Physical Activity and Metabolism and the National Advocacy Committee, said the study substantiates previous smaller studies and is a “seminal” work.
“CRF is woefully underestimated as an index of health outcomes and survival,” said Dr. Franklin, director of preventive cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at Beaumont Health in Royal Oak, Mich. “Moderate to vigorous physical activity should be regularly promoted by the medical community.”
Dr. Franklin’s recent review, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, provides evidence for other exercise benefits that clinicians may not be aware of, he noted. These include:
- Each 1 MET increase in CRF is generally associated with approximately 16% reduction in mortality.
- At any given risk factor profile or coronary calcium score, unfit people have 2-3 times the mortality as their fit counterparts.
- Fitness is inversely related to annual health care costs (each 1 MET increase in CRF is associated with approximately 6% lower annual health care costs).
- Physically active people hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes have better short-term outcomes (likely because of a phenomenon called ‘exercise preconditioning’).
- Fit people who undergo elective or emergent surgical procedures have better outcomes.
- Regular physical activity is a common characteristic in population subsets who routinely live into their 90s and to 100+.
Dr. Franklin had this advice for clinicians seeking to promote CRF increases of 1 MET or more among patients: “Sedentary people who embark on a walking program, who over time increase their walking speed to 3 mph or faster, invariably show at least a 1 MET increase in CRF during subsequent peak or symptom-limited treadmill testing.”
“Another general rule is that if an exercise program decreases heart rate at a given or fixed workload by about 10 beats per minute [bpm], the same treadmill workload that initially was accomplished at a heart rate of 120 bpm is now being accomplished at a heart rate of 110 bpm,” likely resulting in about a 1 MET increase in fitness.
“Accordingly,” he added, “a 20-bpm decrease would suggest a 2 MET increase in fitness!”
In a related editorial, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Ball State University, Muncie, Ind. and colleagues, write, “We agree with and believe the conclusion, reached by Kokkinos et al., bears repeating. We (again) call on both clinicians and public health professionals to adopt CRF as a key health indicator.”
“This should be done by coupling routine assessments of CRF with continued advocacy for promoting physical activity as an essential healthy lifestyle behavior,” they write.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Even relatively small changes in cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with “considerable” impact on clinical symptoms and mortality risk among individuals with and without cardiovascular disease, new observational data in United States veterans suggest.
“We had a few surprises,” Peter Kokkinos, PhD, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N. J., and the VA Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization. “First, the mortality risk was greatly attenuated in those who were moderate- and high-fit at baseline, despite a decline in fitness over time. In fact, in those with no CVD, the risk was not significantly elevated even when CRF declined by at least one MET [metabolic equivalent of task] for the moderate-fit and two or more METs for the high-fit group.”
“Second,” he said, “Our findings suggest that the impact of CRF on human health is not ephemeral, but rather carries a certain protection over time. Third, the changes in CRF necessary to impact mortality risk are relatively small (> 1.0 METs). This has a substantial clinical and public health significance.”
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
CRF up, mortality risk down
Dr. Kokkinos and colleagues analyzed data from 93,060 U.S. veterans; of these, 95% were men (mean age, 61.4 years) and 5% were women (mean age, 57.1 years). Overall, 72% of participants were White; 19.8%, African American; 5.2%, Hispanic; 1.9%, Native American, Asian, or Hawaiian; and 1.2%, unknown.
Participants were assigned to age-specific fitness quartiles based on peak METs achieved on a baseline exercise treadmill test (ETT). Each CRF quartile was stratified based on CRF changes (increase, decrease, no change) on the final ETT, with at least two ETT assessments at least 1 year apart.
The mean follow-up was 5.8 years (663,522 person-years), during which 18,302 deaths (19.7%) occurred, for an average annual mortality rate of 27.6 events per 1,000 person-years.
CRF was unchanged in 25.1% of the cohort, increased in 29.3%, and decreased in 45.6%. The trend was similar for those with and without CVD.
Significant differences were seen in all variables across CRF categories. In general, body weight, body mass index, CVD risk factors, and overall disease burden were progressively more unfavorable for those in the lowest CRF categories.
Conversely, medication use was progressively higher among those in low CRF categories.
After adjustment, higher CRF was inversely related to mortality risk for the entire cohort, with and without CVD. Cumulative survival rates across CRF categories declined progressively with increased fitness.
For patients with CVD (hazard ratio, 1.11), other significant predictors of all-cause mortality for patients were age (HR, 1.07), body mass index (HR, 0.98), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.85), smoking (HR, 1.57), type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.42), hypertension (HR, 1.39), and cancers (HR, 1.37).
Generally, changes in CRF of at least 1.0 MET were associated with inverse and proportionate changes in mortality risk, regardless of baseline CRF status. For example, they note, a CRF decline of > 2.0 METs was associated with a 74% increased mortality risk for low-fit individuals with CVD, and a 69% increase for those without CVD.
A second analysis was done after excluding patients whose CRF declined and who died within 2 years of their last ETT, to account for the possibility that higher mortality rates and CRF declines were consequences of underlying disease (reverse causality). The association between changes in CRF and mortality risk persisted and remained similar to that observed in the entire cohort.
The authors add, “It is noteworthy that CRF increased by at least 1 MET in approximately 29% of the participants in the current study and decreased in approximately 46% of participants. This finding underscores the need to promote physical activity to maintain or increase CRF levels in middle-aged and older individuals.”
“Our findings make a persuasive argument that CRF is a strong and independent determinant of all-cause mortality risk, independent of genetic factors,” Dr. Kokkinos said. “We know that CRF is determined to some degree by genetic factors. However, improvements in aerobic capacity or CRF over time are largely the outcomes of regular engagement in aerobic activities of adequate intensity and volume.”
“Conversely,” he said, “a decline in CRF is likely the result of sedentary behavior, the onset of a chronic condition, or aging.”
If genetics were the sole contributor to mortality risk, then changes in CRF would not influence mortality risk, he concluded.
CRF impact “woefully underestimated”
Barry A. Franklin, PhD, past chair of both the American Heart Association’s Council on Physical Activity and Metabolism and the National Advocacy Committee, said the study substantiates previous smaller studies and is a “seminal” work.
“CRF is woefully underestimated as an index of health outcomes and survival,” said Dr. Franklin, director of preventive cardiology and cardiac rehabilitation at Beaumont Health in Royal Oak, Mich. “Moderate to vigorous physical activity should be regularly promoted by the medical community.”
Dr. Franklin’s recent review, published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, provides evidence for other exercise benefits that clinicians may not be aware of, he noted. These include:
- Each 1 MET increase in CRF is generally associated with approximately 16% reduction in mortality.
- At any given risk factor profile or coronary calcium score, unfit people have 2-3 times the mortality as their fit counterparts.
- Fitness is inversely related to annual health care costs (each 1 MET increase in CRF is associated with approximately 6% lower annual health care costs).
- Physically active people hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes have better short-term outcomes (likely because of a phenomenon called ‘exercise preconditioning’).
- Fit people who undergo elective or emergent surgical procedures have better outcomes.
- Regular physical activity is a common characteristic in population subsets who routinely live into their 90s and to 100+.
Dr. Franklin had this advice for clinicians seeking to promote CRF increases of 1 MET or more among patients: “Sedentary people who embark on a walking program, who over time increase their walking speed to 3 mph or faster, invariably show at least a 1 MET increase in CRF during subsequent peak or symptom-limited treadmill testing.”
“Another general rule is that if an exercise program decreases heart rate at a given or fixed workload by about 10 beats per minute [bpm], the same treadmill workload that initially was accomplished at a heart rate of 120 bpm is now being accomplished at a heart rate of 110 bpm,” likely resulting in about a 1 MET increase in fitness.
“Accordingly,” he added, “a 20-bpm decrease would suggest a 2 MET increase in fitness!”
In a related editorial, Leonard A. Kaminsky, Ball State University, Muncie, Ind. and colleagues, write, “We agree with and believe the conclusion, reached by Kokkinos et al., bears repeating. We (again) call on both clinicians and public health professionals to adopt CRF as a key health indicator.”
“This should be done by coupling routine assessments of CRF with continued advocacy for promoting physical activity as an essential healthy lifestyle behavior,” they write.
No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Sports-related sudden cardiac arrest ‘extremely’ rare in women
Sports-related sudden cardiac arrest (Sr-SCA) appears to be extremely rare in women, compared with men, despite similar characteristics and circumstances of occurrence, data from three European population-based registries suggest.
“Our study shows that cardiac arrest during sports activities is up to 13 times less frequent in women, which means that the risk of sports-related cardiac arrest is substantially lower in women than in men. This tighter risk is consistent across all age subgroups and registries,” Orianne Weizman, MD, MPH, Université Paris Cité, said in an interview.
“Even if it is a nonconsensual suggestion, the question of risk-adapted screening in women must be asked,” Dr. Weizman and colleagues propose.
Their study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Annual incidence
Among 34,826 cases of SCA in the registries that occurred in adults between 2006 and 2017, 760 (2.2%) were related to sports, and the vast majority occurred in men (706, 92.9%). Only 54 (7.1%) occurred in women.
Overall, the average annual incidence of Sr-SCA in women was 0.19 per million, compared with 2.63 per million in men (P < .0001).
When extrapolating to the total European population and accounting for age and sex, this translates into 98 expected cases of Sr-SCA each year in women versus 1,350 cases annually in men.
The average age of Sr-SCA was similar in women and men (59 years). Most cases occurred during moderate-vigorous physical activity, although data on the types of sports and time spent on sports per week or month were not defined.
However, the investigators note that women with Sr-SCA were more likely than men to be engaged in light or moderate physical activity at the time of arrest (17.5% vs. 4.2%) – suggesting a potential higher propensity for women to present with SCA at moderate workloads.
The incidence of Sr-SCA increased only slightly in postmenopausal women, while there was an 8-fold increase in men aged 60-74 years, relative to peers younger than 40 years.
History of heart disease was relatively uncommon in both men and women. Previous myocardial infarction was the most frequent preexisting condition in men (26.8%), whereas nonischemic heart disease (cardiomyopathy and valvular heart disease) was more frequent among women (29.0%).
Cardiovascular risk factors were frequently present in both men and women, with at least one factor present in two-thirds of the patients, regardless of sex.
Pulseless electrical activity and asystole were more common in women than in men (40.7% vs. 19.1%), as has been shown in previous studies of resuscitation from SCA in the general population. Ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation was the initial rhythm in 80.9% of men and 59.3% of women.
The cause of SCA was MI in 31.4% of women and 29.0% of men. Other cases were related to dilated cardiomyopathy (5.6% in women, 1.8% in men) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (1.9% in women, 1.3% in men). Electrical heart disease was found in two women (3.7%) and 15 men (2.1%).
In most cases (86%), one or more witnesses were present and assisted after the collapse. There was no significant difference between men and women in bystander response, time to defibrillation, and survival, which approached 60% at hospital discharge with early bystander cardiorespiratory resuscitation and automatic external defibrillator use.
A limitation of the study is a predominantly White European population, meaning that the findings may not be extrapolated to other populations.
Tailored screening?
“These findings raise questions about the causes of this extremely low risk, which are not yet clear, and the extent to which we should revise our pre-sport screening methods,” Dr. Weizman told this news organization.
“We suggest that extensive, routinely conducted screening in women would not be cost-effective because of the extremely rare incidence of serious events,” Dr. Weizman said.
What’s lacking, however, is sport-specific data on whether specific activities (endurance or resistance) would be more risky for women. Further information, particularly on the sports at highest risk for Sr-SCA in women, is needed to propose tailor-made screening algorithms, Dr. Weizman noted.
The value of preparticipation screening for occult heart disease beyond the history and physical examination has been debated, with some organizations recommending electrocardiogram in addition to baseline assessments.
But this can lead to false-positives, “with the anxiety and cost associated with additional testing,” Anne Curtis, MD, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo General Medical Center, and Jan Tijssen, PhD, University of Amsterdam, write in a linked editorial.
Currently, the American Heart Association recommends screening before sports participation, with a focused personal and family history and physical examination.
Dr. Curtis told this news organization that the U.S. guidelines “should stay as they are, but if one were to change them, it would be important to recognize that male athletes are much more likely to suffer arrhythmic events during sports than female athletes.”
“That to me means that female athletes in particular should not need to have ECGs prior to sports participation unless the history and physical examination detects a potential problem that needs further investigation,” Dr. Curtis said.
“Both women and men should be screened for cardiovascular risk factors during routine primary care, with appropriate interventions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and other risk factors,” Dr. Curtis and Dr. Tijssen advise in their editorial.
“In asymptomatic individuals who wish to become more active, in most cases they should be given the green light to proceed, starting slow and increasing intensity/duration over time, without specific additional testing. This advice is particularly relevant for women, given the findings of the current and prior studies,” they add.
This research was funded by Horizon 2020 and COST Action PARQ, supported by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. Additional support was provided by INSERM, University of Paris, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Fondation Coeur et Artères, Global Heart Watch, Fédération Française de Cardiologie, Société Française de Cardiologie, Fondation Recherche Medicale, as well as unrestricted grants from industrial partners. The authors and Dr. Tijssen have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curtis has disclosed relationships with Janssen several pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sports-related sudden cardiac arrest (Sr-SCA) appears to be extremely rare in women, compared with men, despite similar characteristics and circumstances of occurrence, data from three European population-based registries suggest.
“Our study shows that cardiac arrest during sports activities is up to 13 times less frequent in women, which means that the risk of sports-related cardiac arrest is substantially lower in women than in men. This tighter risk is consistent across all age subgroups and registries,” Orianne Weizman, MD, MPH, Université Paris Cité, said in an interview.
“Even if it is a nonconsensual suggestion, the question of risk-adapted screening in women must be asked,” Dr. Weizman and colleagues propose.
Their study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Annual incidence
Among 34,826 cases of SCA in the registries that occurred in adults between 2006 and 2017, 760 (2.2%) were related to sports, and the vast majority occurred in men (706, 92.9%). Only 54 (7.1%) occurred in women.
Overall, the average annual incidence of Sr-SCA in women was 0.19 per million, compared with 2.63 per million in men (P < .0001).
When extrapolating to the total European population and accounting for age and sex, this translates into 98 expected cases of Sr-SCA each year in women versus 1,350 cases annually in men.
The average age of Sr-SCA was similar in women and men (59 years). Most cases occurred during moderate-vigorous physical activity, although data on the types of sports and time spent on sports per week or month were not defined.
However, the investigators note that women with Sr-SCA were more likely than men to be engaged in light or moderate physical activity at the time of arrest (17.5% vs. 4.2%) – suggesting a potential higher propensity for women to present with SCA at moderate workloads.
The incidence of Sr-SCA increased only slightly in postmenopausal women, while there was an 8-fold increase in men aged 60-74 years, relative to peers younger than 40 years.
History of heart disease was relatively uncommon in both men and women. Previous myocardial infarction was the most frequent preexisting condition in men (26.8%), whereas nonischemic heart disease (cardiomyopathy and valvular heart disease) was more frequent among women (29.0%).
Cardiovascular risk factors were frequently present in both men and women, with at least one factor present in two-thirds of the patients, regardless of sex.
Pulseless electrical activity and asystole were more common in women than in men (40.7% vs. 19.1%), as has been shown in previous studies of resuscitation from SCA in the general population. Ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation was the initial rhythm in 80.9% of men and 59.3% of women.
The cause of SCA was MI in 31.4% of women and 29.0% of men. Other cases were related to dilated cardiomyopathy (5.6% in women, 1.8% in men) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (1.9% in women, 1.3% in men). Electrical heart disease was found in two women (3.7%) and 15 men (2.1%).
In most cases (86%), one or more witnesses were present and assisted after the collapse. There was no significant difference between men and women in bystander response, time to defibrillation, and survival, which approached 60% at hospital discharge with early bystander cardiorespiratory resuscitation and automatic external defibrillator use.
A limitation of the study is a predominantly White European population, meaning that the findings may not be extrapolated to other populations.
Tailored screening?
“These findings raise questions about the causes of this extremely low risk, which are not yet clear, and the extent to which we should revise our pre-sport screening methods,” Dr. Weizman told this news organization.
“We suggest that extensive, routinely conducted screening in women would not be cost-effective because of the extremely rare incidence of serious events,” Dr. Weizman said.
What’s lacking, however, is sport-specific data on whether specific activities (endurance or resistance) would be more risky for women. Further information, particularly on the sports at highest risk for Sr-SCA in women, is needed to propose tailor-made screening algorithms, Dr. Weizman noted.
The value of preparticipation screening for occult heart disease beyond the history and physical examination has been debated, with some organizations recommending electrocardiogram in addition to baseline assessments.
But this can lead to false-positives, “with the anxiety and cost associated with additional testing,” Anne Curtis, MD, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo General Medical Center, and Jan Tijssen, PhD, University of Amsterdam, write in a linked editorial.
Currently, the American Heart Association recommends screening before sports participation, with a focused personal and family history and physical examination.
Dr. Curtis told this news organization that the U.S. guidelines “should stay as they are, but if one were to change them, it would be important to recognize that male athletes are much more likely to suffer arrhythmic events during sports than female athletes.”
“That to me means that female athletes in particular should not need to have ECGs prior to sports participation unless the history and physical examination detects a potential problem that needs further investigation,” Dr. Curtis said.
“Both women and men should be screened for cardiovascular risk factors during routine primary care, with appropriate interventions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and other risk factors,” Dr. Curtis and Dr. Tijssen advise in their editorial.
“In asymptomatic individuals who wish to become more active, in most cases they should be given the green light to proceed, starting slow and increasing intensity/duration over time, without specific additional testing. This advice is particularly relevant for women, given the findings of the current and prior studies,” they add.
This research was funded by Horizon 2020 and COST Action PARQ, supported by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. Additional support was provided by INSERM, University of Paris, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Fondation Coeur et Artères, Global Heart Watch, Fédération Française de Cardiologie, Société Française de Cardiologie, Fondation Recherche Medicale, as well as unrestricted grants from industrial partners. The authors and Dr. Tijssen have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curtis has disclosed relationships with Janssen several pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Sports-related sudden cardiac arrest (Sr-SCA) appears to be extremely rare in women, compared with men, despite similar characteristics and circumstances of occurrence, data from three European population-based registries suggest.
“Our study shows that cardiac arrest during sports activities is up to 13 times less frequent in women, which means that the risk of sports-related cardiac arrest is substantially lower in women than in men. This tighter risk is consistent across all age subgroups and registries,” Orianne Weizman, MD, MPH, Université Paris Cité, said in an interview.
“Even if it is a nonconsensual suggestion, the question of risk-adapted screening in women must be asked,” Dr. Weizman and colleagues propose.
Their study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Annual incidence
Among 34,826 cases of SCA in the registries that occurred in adults between 2006 and 2017, 760 (2.2%) were related to sports, and the vast majority occurred in men (706, 92.9%). Only 54 (7.1%) occurred in women.
Overall, the average annual incidence of Sr-SCA in women was 0.19 per million, compared with 2.63 per million in men (P < .0001).
When extrapolating to the total European population and accounting for age and sex, this translates into 98 expected cases of Sr-SCA each year in women versus 1,350 cases annually in men.
The average age of Sr-SCA was similar in women and men (59 years). Most cases occurred during moderate-vigorous physical activity, although data on the types of sports and time spent on sports per week or month were not defined.
However, the investigators note that women with Sr-SCA were more likely than men to be engaged in light or moderate physical activity at the time of arrest (17.5% vs. 4.2%) – suggesting a potential higher propensity for women to present with SCA at moderate workloads.
The incidence of Sr-SCA increased only slightly in postmenopausal women, while there was an 8-fold increase in men aged 60-74 years, relative to peers younger than 40 years.
History of heart disease was relatively uncommon in both men and women. Previous myocardial infarction was the most frequent preexisting condition in men (26.8%), whereas nonischemic heart disease (cardiomyopathy and valvular heart disease) was more frequent among women (29.0%).
Cardiovascular risk factors were frequently present in both men and women, with at least one factor present in two-thirds of the patients, regardless of sex.
Pulseless electrical activity and asystole were more common in women than in men (40.7% vs. 19.1%), as has been shown in previous studies of resuscitation from SCA in the general population. Ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation was the initial rhythm in 80.9% of men and 59.3% of women.
The cause of SCA was MI in 31.4% of women and 29.0% of men. Other cases were related to dilated cardiomyopathy (5.6% in women, 1.8% in men) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (1.9% in women, 1.3% in men). Electrical heart disease was found in two women (3.7%) and 15 men (2.1%).
In most cases (86%), one or more witnesses were present and assisted after the collapse. There was no significant difference between men and women in bystander response, time to defibrillation, and survival, which approached 60% at hospital discharge with early bystander cardiorespiratory resuscitation and automatic external defibrillator use.
A limitation of the study is a predominantly White European population, meaning that the findings may not be extrapolated to other populations.
Tailored screening?
“These findings raise questions about the causes of this extremely low risk, which are not yet clear, and the extent to which we should revise our pre-sport screening methods,” Dr. Weizman told this news organization.
“We suggest that extensive, routinely conducted screening in women would not be cost-effective because of the extremely rare incidence of serious events,” Dr. Weizman said.
What’s lacking, however, is sport-specific data on whether specific activities (endurance or resistance) would be more risky for women. Further information, particularly on the sports at highest risk for Sr-SCA in women, is needed to propose tailor-made screening algorithms, Dr. Weizman noted.
The value of preparticipation screening for occult heart disease beyond the history and physical examination has been debated, with some organizations recommending electrocardiogram in addition to baseline assessments.
But this can lead to false-positives, “with the anxiety and cost associated with additional testing,” Anne Curtis, MD, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo General Medical Center, and Jan Tijssen, PhD, University of Amsterdam, write in a linked editorial.
Currently, the American Heart Association recommends screening before sports participation, with a focused personal and family history and physical examination.
Dr. Curtis told this news organization that the U.S. guidelines “should stay as they are, but if one were to change them, it would be important to recognize that male athletes are much more likely to suffer arrhythmic events during sports than female athletes.”
“That to me means that female athletes in particular should not need to have ECGs prior to sports participation unless the history and physical examination detects a potential problem that needs further investigation,” Dr. Curtis said.
“Both women and men should be screened for cardiovascular risk factors during routine primary care, with appropriate interventions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and other risk factors,” Dr. Curtis and Dr. Tijssen advise in their editorial.
“In asymptomatic individuals who wish to become more active, in most cases they should be given the green light to proceed, starting slow and increasing intensity/duration over time, without specific additional testing. This advice is particularly relevant for women, given the findings of the current and prior studies,” they add.
This research was funded by Horizon 2020 and COST Action PARQ, supported by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. Additional support was provided by INSERM, University of Paris, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Fondation Coeur et Artères, Global Heart Watch, Fédération Française de Cardiologie, Société Française de Cardiologie, Fondation Recherche Medicale, as well as unrestricted grants from industrial partners. The authors and Dr. Tijssen have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Curtis has disclosed relationships with Janssen several pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA expands evinacumab approval to younger kids with HoFH
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.
The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.
The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.
Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.
The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.
“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mediterranean diet linked to 24% reduction in CVD risk in women
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.
Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.
“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.
“Historically, research trials and studies have had predominantly male participants or lacked sex-specific analysis,” she said. “Our results will pave the way to bridge this gap and also highlight the need for more research to ensure health guidelines and policies include diverse perspectives.”
The study was published online in the journal Heart.
Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes
Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.
The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.
Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.
Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).
Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).
Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).
The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.
At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
Additional considerations
Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.
Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.
“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.
“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”
The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Another FDA class I recall of Cardiosave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to cardiosave-sdhl23.act@getinge.com or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to cardiosave-sdhl23.act@getinge.com or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.
The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.
The devices are indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and noncardiac surgery, and complications of heart failure in adults.
From June 2019 to August 2022, Datascope/Getinge reported 44 complaints about damaged coiled cords resulting in unexpected shutdowns. There have been no reports of injuries or deaths related to this issue, according to the recall notice posted on the FDA’s website.
The recall includes a total of 2,300 CardioSave Hybrid or Rescue IABP units distributed prior to July 24, 2017, and/or coiled cord part number 0012-00-1801. Product model numbers for the recalled Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue are available online.
The Cardiosave IABPs have previously been flagged by the FDA for subpar battery performance and fluid leaks.
To address the cable issue, Datascope/Getinge sent an urgent medical device correction letter to customers recommending that the coiled cable cord of the Cardiosave IABP be inspected for visible damage prior to use.
If an unexpected shutdown occurs, an attempt should be made to restart the Cardiosave IABP until an alternative pump is available. If the restart attempt is unsuccessful, an alternative IABP should be used. Any device that remains inoperable after a shutdown should be removed from patient care.
Customers should inspect their inventory to identify any Cardiosave Hybrid and/or Rescue IABPs that have the recalled coiled cord.
The company also asks customers to complete and sign the Medical Device Correction-Response form included with the letter and return it to Datascope/Getinge by emailing a scanned copy to cardiosave-sdhl23.act@getinge.com or by faxing the form to 1-877-660-5841.
Customers with questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge representative or call Datascope/Getinge technical support at 1-888-943-8872, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM ET.
The company has developed a hardware correction to address this issue and says a service representative will contact customers to schedule installation of the correction when the correction kit is available.
Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinician violence: Virtual reality to the rescue?
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.
Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.
First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?
Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.
We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.
Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.
We are immersing learners into an actual hospital room to our specifications, very similar to exactly where we practice each and every day, and taking the learners through different situations that we designed with various levels of escalation and aggression, and asking the learner to manage that situation as best as they possibly can using the competencies and proficiencies that we taught them.
Dr. Glatter: Haptic feedback is an important part of the program and also the approach and technique that you’re using. Can you describe what haptic feedback means and what people actually feel?
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. One of the most unfortunate things in my professional career is physical abuse suffered by people like me and you and our colleagues, nursing personnel, technicians, and others, resulting in injury.
We wanted to provide the most realistic experience that we could design. Haptics engage digital senses other than your auditory and your visuals. They really engage your tactile senses. These haptic vests and gloves and technology allow us to provide a third set of sensory stimuli for the learner.
At one of the modules, we have an actual physical assault that takes place, and the learner is actually able to feel in their body the strikes – of course, not painful – but just bringing in those senses and that stimulus, really leaving the learner with an experience that’s going to be long-lasting.
Dr. Glatter: Feeling that stimulus certainly affects your vital signs. Do you monitor a provider’s vital signs, such as their blood pressure and heart rate, as the situation and the threat escalate? That could potentially trigger some issues in people with prior PTSD or people with other mental health issues. Has that ever been considered in the design of your program?
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. The beautiful thing about haptics is that they can be tailored to our specific parameters. The sensory stimulus that’s provided is actually very mild. It feels more like a tap than an actual strike. It just reminds us that when we’re having or experiencing an actual physical attack, we’re really engaging the senses.
We have an emergency physician or an EMT-paramedic on site at all times during the training so that we can monitor our subjects and make sure that they’re comfortable and healthy.
Dr. Glatter: Do they have actual sensors attached to their bodies that are part of your program or distinct in terms of monitoring their vital signs?
Dr. Salazar: It’s completely different. We have two different systems that we are planning on utilizing. Frankly, in the final version of this virtual reality module, we may not even involve the haptics. We’re going to study it and see how our learners behave and how much information they’re able to acquire and retain.
It may be very possible that just the visuals – the auditory and the immersion taking place within the hospital room – may be enough. It’s very possible that, in the next final version of this, we may find that haptics bring in quite a bit of value, and we may incorporate that. If that is the case, then we will, of course, acquire different technology to monitor the patient’s vital signs.
Dr. Glatter: Clearly, when situations escalate in the department, everyone gets more concerned about the patient, but providers are part of this equation, as you allude to.
In 2022, there was a poll by the American College of Emergency Physicians that stated that 85% of emergency physicians reported an increase in violent activity in their ERs in the past 5 years. Nearly two-thirds of nearly 3,000 emergency physicians surveyed reported being assaulted in the past year. This is an important module that we integrate into training providers in terms of these types of tense situations that can result not only in mental anguish but also in physical injury.
Dr. Salazar: One hundred percent. I frankly got tired of seeing my friends and my colleagues suffer both the physical and mental effects of verbal and physical abuse, and I wanted to design a project that was very patient centric while allowing our personnel to really manage these situations a little bit better.
Frankly, we don’t receive great training in this space, and I wanted to rewrite that narrative and make things better for our clinicians out there while remaining patient centric. I wanted to do something about it, and hopefully this dream will become a reality.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. There are other data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that health care workers are five times more likely than employees in any other area of work to experience workplace violence. This could, again, range from verbal to physical violence. This is a very important module that you’re developing.
Are there any thoughts to extend this to active-shooter scenarios or any other high-stakes scenarios that you can imagine in the department?
Dr. Salazar: We’re actually working with the same developer that’s helping us with this VR module in developing a mass-casualty incident module so that we can get better training in responding to these very unfortunate high-stakes situations.
Dr. Glatter: In terms of using the module remotely, certainly not requiring resources or having to be in a physical place, can providers in your plan be able to take such a headset home and practice on their own in the sense of being able to deal with a situation? Would this be more reserved for in-department use?
Dr. Salazar: That’s a phenomenal question. I wanted to create the most flexible module that I possibly could. Ideally, a dream scenario is leveraging a simulation center at an academic center and not just do the VR module but also have a brief didactics incorporating a small slide set, some feedback, and some standardized patients. I wanted it to be flexible enough so that folks here in my state, a different state, or even internationally could take advantage of this technology and do it from the comfort of their home.
As you mentioned, this is going to strike some people. It’s going to hit them heavier than others in terms of prior experience as PTSD. For some people, it may be more comfortable to do it in the comfort of their homes. I wanted to create something very flexible and dynamic.
Dr. Glatter: I think that’s ideal. Just one other point. Can you discuss the different levels of competencies involved in this module and how that would be attained?
Dr. Salazar: It’s all evidence based, so we borrowed from literature and the specialties of emergency medicine. We collaborated with psychiatrists within our medical center. We looked at all available literature and methods, proficiencies, competencies, and best practices, and we took all of them together to form something that we think is organized and concise.
We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.
This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.
Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.
Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.
Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.
Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?
Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.
Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.
Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?
Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.
Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.
Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.
Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.
Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.
Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.
Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Keto-like’ diet linked to doubling of heart disease risk
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Consumption of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, dubbed a “keto-like” diet, was associated with an increase in LDL levels and a twofold increase in the risk for future cardiovascular events, in a new observational study.
“To our knowledge this is the first study to demonstrate an association between a carbohydrate-restricted dietary platform and greater risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” said study investigator Iulia Iatan, MD, PhD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
“Hypercholesterolemia occurring during a low-carb, high-fat diet should not be assumed to be benign,” she concluded.
Dr. Iatan presented the study March 5 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The presentation received much media attention, with headlines implying a causal relationship with cardiac events based on these observational results. But lipid expert Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, warned against paying much attention to the headlines or to the study’s conclusions.
In an interview, Dr. Nissen pointed out that the LDL increase in the “keto-like” diet group was relatively small and “certainly not enough to produce a doubling in cardiovascular risk.
“The people who were on the ‘keto-like’ diet in this study were different than those who were on the standard diet,” he said. “Those on the ‘keto-like’ diet were on it for a reason – they were more overweight, they had a higher incidence of diabetes, so their risk profile was completely different. Even though the researchers tried to adjust for other cardiovascular risk factors, there will be unmeasured confounding in a study like this.”
He said he doesn’t think this study “answers any significant questions in a way that we want to have them answered. I’m not a big fan of this type of diet, but I don’t think it doubles the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, and I don’t think this study tells us one way or another.”
For the study, Dr. Iatan and colleagues defined a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet as consisting of no more than 25% of total daily energy from carbohydrates and more than 45% of total daily calories from fat. This is somewhat higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat than a strict ketogenic diet but could be thought of as a ‘keto-like’ diet.
They analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective database with health information from over half a million people living in the United Kingdom who were followed for at least 10 years.
On enrollment in the Biobank, participants completed a one-time, self-reported 24-hour diet questionnaire and, at the same time, had blood drawn to check their levels of cholesterol. The researchers identified 305 participants whose questionnaire responses indicated that they followed a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet. These participants were matched by age and sex with 1,220 individuals who reported being on a standard diet.
Of the study population, 73% were women and the average age was 54 years. Those on a low carbohydrate/high fat diet had a higher average body mass index (27.7 vs. 26.7) and a higher incidence of diabetes (4.9% vs. 1.7%).
Results showed that compared with participants on a standard diet, those on the “keto-like” diet had significantly higher levels of both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB).
Levels of LDL were 3.80 mmol/L (147 mg/dL) in the keto-like group vs. 3.64 mmol/L (141 mg/dL) in the standard group (P = .004). Levels of ApoB were 1.09 g/L (109 mg/dL) in the keto-like group and 1.04 g/L (104 mg/dL) in the standard group (P < .001).
After an average of 11.8 years of follow-up, 9.8% of participants on the low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet vs. 4.3% in the standard diet group experienced one of the events included in the composite event endpoint: Angina, myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or coronary/carotid revascularization.
After adjustment for other risk factors for heart disease – diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking – individuals on a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet were found to have a twofold risk of having a cardiovascular event (HR, 2.18; P < .001).
‘Closer monitoring needed’
“Our results have shown, I think for the first time, that there is an association between this increasingly popular dietary pattern and high LDL cholesterol and an increased future risk of cardiovascular events,” senior author Liam Brunham, MD, of the University of British Columbia, said in an interview. “This is concerning as there are many people out there following this type of diet, and I think it suggests there is a need for closer monitoring of these people.”
He explained that while it would be expected for cholesterol levels to rise on a high-fat diet, “there has been a perception by some that this is not worrisome as it is reflecting certain metabolic changes. What we’ve shown in this study is that if your cholesterol does increase significantly on this diet then you should not assume that this is not a problem.
“For some people with diabetes this diet can help lower blood sugar and some people can lose weight on it,” he noted, “but what our data show is that there is a subgroup of people who experience high levels of LDL and ApoB and that seems to be driving the risk.”
He pointed out that overall the mean level of LDL was only slightly increased in the individuals on the low-carb/high-fat diet but severe high cholesterol (more than 5 mmol/L or 190 mg/dL) was about doubled in that group (10% vs. 5%). And these patients had a sixfold increase in risk of cardiovascular disease (P < .001).
“This suggests that there is a subgroup of people who are susceptible to this exacerbation of hypercholesterolemia in response to a low-carb/high-fat diet.”
Dr. Brunham said his advice would be that if people choose to follow this diet, they should have their cholesterol monitored, and manage their cardiovascular risk factors.
“I wouldn’t say it is not appropriate to follow this diet based on this study,” he added. “This is just an observational study. It is not definitive. But if people do want to follow this dietary pattern because they feel there would be some benefits, then they should be aware of the potential risks and take steps to mitigate those risks.”
Jury still out
Dr. Nissen said in his view “the jury was still out” on this type of diet. “I’m open to the possibility that, particularly in the short run, a ‘keto-like’ diet may help some people lose weight and that’s a good thing. But I do not generally recommend this type of diet.”
Rather, he advises patients to follow a Mediterranean diet, which has been proven to reduce cardiovascular events in a randomized study, the PREDIMED trial.
“We can’t make decisions on what type of diet to recommend to patients based on observational studies like this where there is a lot of subtlety missing. But when studies like this are reported, the mass media seize on it. That’s not the way the public needs to be educated,” Dr. Nissen said.
“We refer to this type of study as hypothesis-generating. It raises a hypothesis. It doesn’t answer the question. It is worth looking at the question of whether a ketogenic-like diet is harmful. We don’t know at present, and I don’t think we know any more after this study,” he added.
The authors of the study reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023
20 years of clinical research in cardiology
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
In February 2003, when Cardiology News published its first edition, there were a handful of articles reporting results from randomized clinical trials. These included a trial of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) anticoagulation (REPLACE-2) and a small controlled pilot study of soy nuts for blood pressure reduction in postmenopausal women. Also included was a considered discussion of the ALLHAT findings.
These trials and the incremental gain they offered belie the enormous global impact the cardiology community has had in clinical research over the last several decades. In fact, more than any other medical specialty, cardiology has led the way in evidence-based practice.
“When you step back and take a look at the compendium of cardiology advances, it’s unbelievable how much we’ve accomplished in the last 20 years,” said Steven E. Nissen, MD.
Dr. Nissen, a prodigious researcher, is the chief academic officer at the Sydell and Arnold Miller Family Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, and holds the Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
The needle mover: LDL lowering
“From a population health perspective, LDL cholesterol lowering is clearly the big winner,” said Christopher Cannon, MD, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said in an interview.
“We’ve been at it with LDL cholesterol for about 50 years now, but I think things really accelerated over the last 20 years when the conversation shifted from just lowering LDL-C to recognizing that lower is better. This pushed us toward high-intensity statin treatment and add-on drugs to push LDL down further,” he said.
“Concurrent with this increase in the use of statins and other LDL-lowering drugs, cardiovascular death has fallen significantly, which in my mind is likely a result of better LDL lowering and getting people to stop smoking, which we’ve also done a better job of in the last 20 years,” said Dr. Cannon.
Indeed, until cardiovascular mortality started rising in 2020, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality rates had been dropping steadily for several decades. The progress in the past 2 decades has been so fast, noted Dr. Cannon, that the American Heart Association’s stated goal in 1998 of reducing coronary heart disease, stroke, and risk by 25% by the year 2008 was accomplished about 4 years ahead of schedule.
Coincidentally, Dr. Cannon and Dr. Nissen were both important players in this advance. Dr. Cannon led the PROVE-IT trial, which showed in 2004 that an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen offers greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome.
That trial was published just months after REVERSAL, Dr. Nissen’s trial that showed for the first time that intensive lipid-lowering treatment reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, compared with a moderate lipid-lowering approach.
“Added to this, we have drugs like ezetimibe and the PCSK9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor, and now they’re even using CRISPR gene editing to permanently switch off the gene that codes for PCSK9, testing this in people with familial hypercholesterolemia,” said Dr. Cannon. “In the preclinical study, they showed that with one treatment they lowered blood PCSK9 protein levels by 83% and LDL-C by 69%..”
At the same time as we’ve seen what works, we’ve also seen what doesn’t work, added Dr. Nissen. “Shortly after we saw the power of LDL lowering, everyone wanted to target HDL and we had epidemiological evidence suggesting this was a good idea, but several landmark trials testing the HDL hypothesis were complete failures.” Debate continues as to whether HDL cholesterol is a suitable target for prevention.
Not only has the recent past in lipidology been needle-moving, but the hits keep coming. Inclisiran, a first-in-class LDL cholesterol–lowering drug that shows potent lipid-lowering efficacy and excellent safety and tolerability in phase 3 study, received Food and Drug Administration approval in December 2021. The drugs twice-a-year dosing has been called a game changer for adherence.
And at the 2023 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology in March, Dr. Nissen presented results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial on bempedoic acid (Nexletol), a 14,000-patient, placebo-controlled trial of bempedoic acid in statin intolerant patients at high cardiovascular risk. Bempedoic acid is a novel compound that inhibits ATP citrate lyase, which catalyzes a step in the biosynthesis of cholesterol upstream of HMG-CoA reductase, the target of statins.
Findings revealed a significant reduction in risk for a composite 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events endpoint of time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial marks the first time an oral nonstatin drug has met the MACE-4 primary endpoint, Dr. Nissen reported.
“We also have new therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) and outcome trials underway for antisense and short interfering RNA targeting of Lp(a), which I frankly think herald a new era in which we can have these longer-acting directly targeted drugs that work at the translation level to prevent a protein that is not desirable,” added Dr. Nissen. “These drugs will undoubtedly change the face of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the next 2 decades.”
Other important successes and equally important failures
Perhaps consideration of some of the treatments we didn’t have 20 years ago is more revealing than a list of advances. Two decades ago, there were no direct direct-acting anticoagulants on the market, “so no alternative to warfarin, which is difficult to use and associated with excess bleeding,” said Dr. Cannon. These days, warfarin is little used, mostly after valve replacement, Dr. Nissen added.
There were also no percutaneous options for the treatment of valvular heart disease and no catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, “huge developments that are now being done everywhere,” Dr. Nissen said.
Also in the catheterization laboratory, there was also a far less sophisticated understanding of the optimal role of PCI in treating coronary artery disease.
“We’ve moved from what we called the ‘oculostenotic reflex’– if you see an obstruction, you treat it – to a far more nuanced understanding of who should and shouldn’t have PCI, such that now PCI has contracted to the point where most of the time it’s being done for urgent indications like ST-segment elevation MI or an unstable non-STEMI. And this is based on a solid evidence base, which is terribly important,” said Dr. Nissen.
The rise and fall of CVOTs
Certainly, the heart failure world has seen important advances in recent years, including the first mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, spironolactone, shown in the 1999 RALES trial to be life prolonging in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and a first in class angiotensin neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. But it’s a fair guess that heart failure has never seen anything like the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.
Likely very few in the cardiology world had ever heard of SGLT2 inhibition 20 years ago, even though the idea of SGLT2 inhibition dates back more than 150 years, to when a French chemist isolated a substance known as phlorizin from the bark of the apple tree and subsequent investigations found that ingestion of it caused glucosuria. The SGLT2 story is one of great serendipity and one in which Dr. Nissen played a prominent role. It also hints to something that has both come and gone in the last 20 years: the FDA-mandated cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT).
It was Dr. Nissen’s meta-analysis published in 2007 that started the ball rolling for what has been dubbed the CVOT or cardiovascular outcomes trials.
His analysis suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone (Avandia), then a best-selling diabetes drug.
“At the time, Avandia was the top selling diabetes drug in the world, and our meta-analysis was terribly controversial,” said Dr. Nissen. In 2008, he gave a presentation to the FDA where he suggested they should require properly powered trials to rule out excess cardiovascular risk for any new diabetes drugs.
Others also recognized that the findings of his meta-analysis hinted to a failure of the approval process and the postapproval monitoring process, something which had been seen previously, with cardiac safety concerns emerging over other antihyperglycemic medications. The FDA was also responding to concerns that, given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in diabetes, approving a drug with cardiovascular risk could be disastrous.
In 2008 they mandated the CVOT, one of which, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke by 14% (P = .04), driven by a 38% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular death (P < .001).Treatment with empagliflozin was also associated with a 35% reduction in heart failure hospitalization and a 32% reduction in all-cause death in that trial.
Additional groundbreaking CVOTs of empagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors went on to show significant cardiorenal benefits and risk reduction in patients across the spectrum of heart failure, including those with preserved ejection fraction and in those with kidney disease.
“I think it’s fair to say that, had the FDA not mandated CVOTs for all new diabetes drugs, then the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1 [glucagonlike peptide–1] receptor agonists would have been approved on the basis of trials involving a few thousand patients showing that they lowered blood sugar, and we might never have found out what we know now about their benefits in individuals with established cardiovascular disease, in heart failure, and their ability to help people lose weight,” said Dr. Nissen. “And, of course, Avandia is long gone, which is a good thing.”
Interestingly, the FDA no longer requires extensive cardiovascular testing for new glucose-lowering agents in the absence of specific safety signals, replacing the CVOT mandate with one requiring broader inclusion of patients with underlying CV disease, chronic kidney disease, and older patients in stage 3 clinical trials of new agents.
“The SGLT2 inhibitors are already hugely important and with the growing prevalence of diabetes, their role is just going to get bigger. And it looks like the same thing will happen with the GLP-1 receptor agonists and obesity. We don’t have the outcomes trials for semaglutide and tirzepatide yet in patients with obesity, but given every other trial of this class in patients with diabetes has shown cardiovascular benefit, assuming those trials do too, those drugs are going to be very important,” added Dr. Cannon.
“The truth is, everywhere you look in cardiology, there have been major advances,” Dr. Cannon said. “It’s a wonderful time to work in this field because we’re making important progress across the board and it doesn’t appear to be slowing down at all.”
Clinical research for the next 20 years
Twenty years ago, clinical research was relatively simple, or at least it seemed so. All that was needed was a basic understanding of the scientific method and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), a solid research question, a target sample of sufficient size to ensure statistical power, and some basic statistical analysis, et violà, evidence generation.
Turns out, that might have been in large part true because medicine was in a more simplistic age. While RCTs remain the cornerstone of determining the safety and efficacy of new therapeutic strategies, they traditionally have severely lacked in age, gender, ethnic, and racial diversity. These issues limit their clinical relevance, to the chagrin of the large proportion of the population (women, minorities, children, and anyone with comorbidities) not included in most studies.
RCTs have also grown exceedingly time consuming and expensive. “We really saw the limitations of our clinical trial system during the pandemic when so many of the randomized COVID-19 trials done in the United States had complex protocols with a focus on surrogate outcomes such that, with only the 500 patients they enrolled, they ended up showing nothing,” Dr. Cannon said in an interview.
“And then we looked at the RECOVERY trial program that Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, and the folks at Oxford [England] University pioneered. They ran multiple trials for relatively little costs, used a pragmatic design, and asked simple straightforward questions, and included 10,000-15,000 patients in each trial and gave us answers quickly,” he said.
RECOVERY is an ongoing adaptive multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating several potential treatments for COVID-19. The RECOVERY Collaborative are credited with running multiple streamlined and easy to administer trials that included more than 47,000 participants spread across almost 200 hospital sites in six countries. The trials resulted in finding four effective COVID-19 treatments and proving that five others clearly were not effective.
Importantly, only essential data were collected and, wherever possible, much of the follow-up information was derived from national electronic health records.
“Now the question is, Can the U.S. move to doing more of these pragmatic trials?” asked Dr. Cannon.
Time to be inclusive
Where the rules of generating evidence have changed and will continue to change over the next many years is inclusivity. Gone are the days when researchers can get away with running a randomized trial with, say, few minority patients, 20% representation of women, and no elderly patients with comorbidities.
“I’m proud of the fact that 48% of more than 14,000 participants in the CLEAR outcomes trial that I presented at the ACC meeting are women,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“Should it have been like that 20 years ago? Yes, probably. But we weren’t as conscious of these things. Now we’re working very hard to enroll more women and more underrepresented groups into trials, and this is a good thing.”
In a joint statement entitled “Randomized trials fit for the 21st century,” the leadership of the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation urge investigators and professional societies to “promote trials that are relevant to a broad and varied population; assuring diversity of participants and funded researchers (e.g., with appropriate sex, age, racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity).”
The statement also recognizes that the present clinical research model is “unsustainable” and encourages wider adoption of “highly streamlined” conduct like that taken by the RECOVERY investigators during the pandemic.
Stick with randomization
Some have suggested that loosening the standards for evidence generation in medicine to include observational data, big data, artificial intelligence, and alternative trial strategies, such as Mendelian randomization and causal inference of nonrandomized data, might help drive new treatments to the clinic faster. To this, Dr. Nissen and Dr. Cannon offer an emphatic no.
“The idea that you can use big data or any kind of nonrandomized data to replace randomized control trials is a bad idea, and the reason is that nonrandomized data is often bad data,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview.
“I can’t count how many bad studies we’ve seen that were enormous in size, and where they tried to control the variables to balance it out, and they still get the wrong answer,” he added. “The bottom line is that observational data has failed us over and over again.”
Not to say that observational studies have no value, it’s just not for determining which treatments are most efficacious or safe, said Dr. Cannon. “If you want to identify markers of disease or risk factors, you can use observational data like data collected from wearables and screen for patients who, say, might be at high risk of dying of COVID-19. Or even more directly, you can use a heart rate and temperature monitor to identify people who are about to test positive for COVID-19.
“But the findings of observational analyses, no matter how much you try to control for confounding, are only ever going to be hypothesis generating. They can’t be used to say this biomarker causes death from COVID or this blood thinner is better than that blood thinner.”
Concurring with this, the ESC, AHA, ACC, and WHF statement authors acknowledged the value of nonrandomized evidence in today’s big data, electronic world, but advocated for the “appropriate use of routine EHRs (i.e. ‘real-world’ data) within randomized trials, recognizing the huge potential of centrally or regionally held electronic health data for trial recruitment and follow-up, as well as to highlight the severe limitations of using observational analyses when the purpose is to draw causal inference about the risks and benefits of an intervention.”
Causal AI quantifies CV risk, providing patient-specific goals
NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).
Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.
The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients
This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.
To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.
When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.
Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.
Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.
Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.
Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.
Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.
According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
Treatments become understandable to patients
“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.
A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.
Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.
By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.
With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.
She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.
Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).
Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.
The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients
This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.
To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.
When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.
Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.
Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.
Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.
Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.
Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.
According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
Treatments become understandable to patients
“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.
A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.
Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.
By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.
With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.
She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.
Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Causal artificial intelligence (AI) can translate polygenic scores (PGS) and other genetic information into risk reduction strategies for coronary artery disease (CAD) that is tailored for each individual patient, according to an analysis presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
Tested for LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), causal AI explained how much each of these risk factors must improve at the level of each individual patient “to overcome overall inherited risk,” reported Brian Ference, MD, MPhil, director of translational therapeutics, University of Cambridge (England).
Unlike the “black box” risk assessments common to machine learning, which relies on disparate forms of information of often unknown relative significance, causal AI explains cause and effect. In the case of CAD, its ability to encode the biological causes means that it can “both predict outcomes and prescribe specific actions to change those outcomes,” Dr. Ference explained.
The concept is testable against observed biology using randomized evidence, which was the objective of the study Dr. Ference presented in the late-breaker session.
Causal AI trained on nearly 2 million patients
This study employed a causal AI platform trained on roughly 1.3 million participants in Mendelian randomization studies, as well as more than 500,000 participants in randomized clinical trials. The PGS estimate of inherited risk was constructed from almost 4.1 million variants from genomewide association studies.
To test the ability of causal AI to reveal how much LDL-C or SBP had to be reduced to overcome the inherited risk of CAD based on PGS, it was applied to 445,765 participants of European ancestry in the UK Biobank. The goal was to determine how much those with greater than average risk would need to lower their LDL-C or SBP to achieve average CAD risk.
When validated against observed rates of events, causal AI accurately characterized risk before estimating what reductions in LDL-C, SBP, or both would attenuate that risk.
Providing examples, Dr. Ference explained that a PGS in the 80th percentile can be overcome by lowering LDL-C by 14 mg/dL. Alternatively, the 80th percentile risk could also be overcome by simultaneously lowering LDL-C and SBP by 7 mg/dL and 2.5 mm Hg, respectively.
Required risk factor reductions increase with age because of the increased risk of the events. For example, while a 14.8 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C would be adequate to overcome risk defined by a PGS in the 80th percentile at age 35, reductions of 18.2 mg/dL, 28.9 mg/dL, and 42.6 mg/dL would be required, respectively, at ages 45, 55, and 65 years. The values climb similarly for SBP.
Family history of CAD adds an independent variable that further contributes to the ability of causal AI to estimate risk and the degree of risk factor attenuation to overcome the risk.
Even though family history is equivalent to having PGS above the 95th percentile, it is an independent and additive variable, according to Dr. Ference. As a result, inherited risk of CAD depends on both.
Still when family history is factored into the analysis, “causal AI accurately estimated the magnitude of lower LDL-C, SBP, or both needed to overcome overall inherited risk at all levels of higher or lower PGS,” he reported.
According to Dr. Ference, the value of causal AI is that it can generate very specific goals for each patient regarding modifiable risk factors. Causal effects of risk factors encoded in time units of exposure allow the patient and the clinician to understand the biology and the basis of the disease burden.
Treatments become understandable to patients
“Encoding biology creates algorithms that are deeply explainable because they reveal why a person is at risk, how to reduce that risk, and how much each person will benefit from specific actions to reduce risk,” Dr. Ference said.
A real-world, randomized trial to confirm that the information from causal AI can reduce the risk of CAD is expected to start in 2023, but Dr. Ference thinks that causal AI for managing CAD risk, independent of this planned trial, is essentially inevitable. PGS, which he thinks will be performed routinely in all individuals within 10 years, is only likely to improve. He foresees large advantages of this form of personalized medicine.
Ami Bhatt, MD, chief innovation officer for the American College of Cardiology, Washington, agreed, seeing a direct relationship between precision health as the pathway to improvements in population health.
By explaining risk factors in terms of mechanisms and specific goals to ameliorate these risks, it “engages our patients with agency,” said Dr. Bhatt. She suggested that the information provided by causal AI has the potential to empower patients while creating a collaborative approach with clinicians to CAD prevention.
With patient-specific information provided in the context of the disease biology, “you increase the sense of transparency,” Dr. Bhatt said.
She suggested this direction of research is wholly consistent with initiatives such as those from the World Health Organization to improve precision medicine as a step toward equipping patients to manage their own health.
Dr. Ference reported financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, CiVi Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, DalCOR, Esperion, Eli Lilly, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, KrKA, Medicines Company, Merck, Mylan, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi, and Viatris. Dr. Bhatt reported no potential conflicts of interest.
AT ACC 2023
NUDGE-FLU: Electronic ‘nudges’ boost flu shot uptake in seniors
Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.
And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.
The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older. 
Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet
The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.
“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”
They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.
Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.
In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.
Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”
“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”
“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.
“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.
‘Small but important effect’
In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”
A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”
Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes.
However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.
Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.
First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial
The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.
They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.
This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.
Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:
- Standard electronic letter
- Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
- Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
- Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
- Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
- Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)
- Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
- Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
- Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)
The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.
All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022.
The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.
The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.
Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).
These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.
The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.
The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.
Subanalysis in CVD
In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).
The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).
Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”
Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”
NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.
And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.
The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older.
Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet
The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.
“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”
They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.
Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.
In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.
Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”
“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”
“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.
“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.
‘Small but important effect’
In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”
A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”
Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes.
However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.
Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.
First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial
The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.
They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.
This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.
Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:
- Standard electronic letter
- Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
- Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
- Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
- Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
- Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)
- Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
- Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
- Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)
The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.
All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022.
The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.
The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.
Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).
These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.
The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.
The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.
Subanalysis in CVD
In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).
The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).
Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”
Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”
NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two types of electronically delivered letter strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination and a repeat reminder letter – increased flu shot uptake, compared with usual care alone, in a national study of seniors in Denmark.
And in a prespecified subanalysis focusing on older adults with cardiovascular disease, these two strategies were also effective in boosting vaccine uptake in those with or without CVD.
The findings are from the Nationwide Utilization of Danish Government Electronic Letter System for Increasing Influenza Vaccine Uptake (NUDGE-FLU) trial, which compared usual care alone with one of nine different electronic letter “behavioral nudge” strategies during the 2022-2023 flu season in people aged 65 years and older.
Niklas Dyrby Johansen, MD, Hospital–Herlev and Gentofte and Copenhagen University, presented the main study findings in a late-breaking clinical trial session at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, and the article was simultaneously published in The Lancet
The subanalysis in patients with CVD was published online March 5 in Circulation.
“Despite modest effect sizes, the results may have important implications when translated to a population level,” Dr. Dyrby Johansen concluded during his presentation. Still, the authors write, “the low-touch (no person-to-person interaction), inexpensive, and highly scalable nature of these electronic letters might have important population-level public health implications.”
They note that, among approximately 63 million Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, a 0.89–percentage point absolute increase in vaccination rate achieved through the most successful electronic letter in NUDGE-FLU, the one highlighting cardiovascular gain, would be expected to lead to 500,000 additional vaccinations and potentially prevent 7,849 illnesses, 4,395 medical visits, 714 hospitalizations, and 66 deaths each year.
Electronic letter systems similar to the one used in this trial are already in place in several European countries, including Sweden, Norway, and Ireland, the researchers note.
In countries such as the United States, where implementing a nationwide government electronic letter system might not be feasible, nudges could be done via email, text message, or other systems, but whether this would be as effective remains to be seen.
Commenting on the findings, David Cho, MD, UCLA Health and chair of the ACC Health Care Innovation Council, commended the researchers on engaging patients with more than a million separate nudges sent out during one flu season, and randomly assigning participants to 10 different types of nudges, calling it “impressive.”
“I think the concept that the nudge is to plant an idea that leads to an action is pretty much the basis of a lot of these health care interventions, which seems like a small way to have a big impact at outcome,” Dr. Cho noted. “The behavioral science aspects of the nudges are also fascinating to me personally, and I think to a lot of the cardiologists in the audience – about how you actually get people to act. I think it’s been a lifelong question for people in general, how do you get people to follow through on an action?”
“So I found the fact that secondary gain from a cardiovascular health standpoint, but also the repeated nudges were sort of simple ways that you could have people take ownership and get their flu vaccination,” he said.
“This is ACC, this is a cardiovascular conference, but the influence of vaccine is not just a primary care problem, it is also directly affecting cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Cho concluded.
‘Small but important effect’
In an accompanying editorial (Lancet. 2023 Mar 5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00453-1), Melissa Stockwell, MD, Columbia University, New York, writes, “The study by Johansen and colleagues highlights the small but still important effect of scalable, digital interventions across an entire at-risk population.”
A difference of 0.89% in the entire study population of over 960,000 adults age 65 years or older would be more than 8,500 additional adults protected, she notes. “That increase is important for a scalable intervention that has a low cost per letter.”
Moreover, “that the cardiovascular gain–framed messages worked best in those who had not been vaccinated in the previous season further highlights the potential impact on a more vaccine-hesitant population,” Dr. Stockwell notes.
However, with the mandatory government electronic notification system in Denmark, “notifications are sent via regular email and SMS message, and recipients log in through a portal or smartphone app to view the letter.” Similar studies in the United States that included this extra step of needing to sign in online have not been effective in older populations.
Another limitation is that the intervention may have a different effect in populations for which there is a digital divide between people with or without Internet access of sufficient data on their mobile phones.
First-of-its kind, nationwide pragmatic trial
The NUDGE-FLU protocol was previously published in the American Heart Journal. NUDGE-FLU is a first-of-its kind nationwide, pragmatic, registry-based, cluster-randomized implementation trial of electronically delivered nudges to increase influenza vaccination uptake, the researchers note.
They identified 964,870 individuals who were 65 years or older (or would turn 65 by Jan. 15, 2023) who lived in one of 691,820 households in Denmark.
This excluded individuals who lived in a nursing home or were exempt from the government’s mandatory electronic letter system that is used for official communications.
Households were randomly assigned 9:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1 to receive usual care alone or to one of nine electronic letter strategies based on different behavioral science approaches to encourage influenza vaccination uptake:
- Standard electronic letter
- Standard electronic letter sent at randomization and again 14 days later (repeated letter)
- Depersonalized letter without the recipient’s name
- Gain-framing nudge (“Vaccinations help end pandemics, like COVID-19 and the flu. Protect yourself and your loved ones.”)
- Loss-framing nudge (“When too few people get vaccinated, pandemics from diseases like COVID-19 and the flu can spread and place you and your loved ones at risk.”)
- Collective-goal nudge (“78% of Danes 65 and above were vaccinated against influenza last year. Help us achieve an even higher goal this year.”)
- Active choice or implementation-intention prompt (“We encourage you to record your appointment time here.”)
- Cardiovascular gain–framing nudge (“In addition to its protection against influenza infection, influenza vaccination also seems to protect against cardiovascular disease such as heart attacks and heart failure.”)
- Expert-authority statement (“I recommend everyone over the age of 65 years to get vaccinated against influenza – Tyra Grove Krause, Executive Vice President, Statens Serum Institut.”)
The electronic letters were sent out Sept. 16, 2022, and the primary endpoint was vaccine receipt on or before Jan. 1, 2023.
All individuals received an informative vaccination encouragement letter from the Danish Health Authority (usual care) delivered via the same electronic letter system during Sept. 17 through Sept. 21, 2022.
The individuals had a mean age of 73.8 years, 51.5% were women, and 27.4% had chronic cardiovascular disease.
The analyses were done in one randomly selected individual per household.
Influenza vaccination rates were significantly higher in the cardiovascular gain–framing nudge group vs. usual care (81.00% vs. 80.12%; difference, 0.89 percentage points; P < .0001) and in the repeat-letter group vs. usual care (80.85% vs 80.12%; difference, 0.73 percentage points; P = .0006).
These two strategies also improved vaccination rates across major subgroups.
The cardiovascular gain–framed letter was particularly effective among participants who had not been vaccinated for influenza in the previous season.
The seven other letter strategies did not increase flu shot uptake.
Subanalysis in CVD
In the prespecified subanalysis of the NUDGE-FLU trial of patients aged 65 and older that focused on patients with CVD, Daniel Modin, MB, and colleagues report that 83.1% of patients with CVD vs. 79.2% of patients without CVD received influenza vaccination within the requested time (P < .0001).
The two nudging strategies – a letter highlighting potential cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination or a repeat letter – that were effective in boosting flu shot rates in the main analysis were also effective in all major CVD subgroups (ischemic heart disease, pulmonary heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerotic CVD, embolic or thrombotic disease, and congenital heart disease).
Despite strong guideline endorsement, “influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Morin and colleagues write, possibly because of “insufficient knowledge among patients and providers of potential clinical benefits, concerns about vaccine safety, and other forms of vaccine hesitancy.”
Their findings suggest that “select digital behaviorally informed nudges delivered in advance of vaccine availability might be utilized to increase influenza vaccinate uptake in individuals with cardiovascular disease.”
NUDGE-HF was funded by Sanofi. Dr. Johansen and Dr. Modin have no disclosures. The disclosures of the other authors are listed with the articles. Dr. Stockwell has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023