Cardiology

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy affect nearly 16% of women who give birth in U.S. hospitals and appear to be increasing, according to an April 29 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Older patients and Black women are substantially more likely to experience hypertension in pregnancy, the analysis found.

“Addressing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy is a key strategy in reducing inequities in pregnancy-related mortality,” study coauthor Wanda Barfield, MD, MPH, director of CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, said in a statement.
 

Age, obesity, diabetes

The overall prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% in 2017 to 15.9% in 2019, the researchers reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The uptick in hypertension coincides with trends toward older maternal age and higher rates of obesity and diabetes, which may explain the increase, they said.

For the study, Dr. Barfield and her colleagues analyzed nationally representative data from the National Inpatient Sample. They identified patients with a diagnosis of chronic hypertension, pregnancy-associated hypertension, or unspecified maternal hypertension during their hospitalization.

Among women aged 45-55 years, the prevalence of hypertension was 31%. Among those aged 35-44 years, it was 18%.

Hypertension diagnoses were more common in women who were Black (20.9%) or American Indian or Alaska Native (16.4%), than in other groups.

Of patients who died during delivery hospitalization, 31.6% had a hypertensive disorder.

The study shows a marked increase in hypertensive disorders over a relatively short time, according to Jane van Dis, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who was not involved in the research. The phenomenon is consistent with her own experience, she said.

“When I am admitting patients, I’m oftentimes surprised when someone does not have a hypertensive disorder because I feel like the majority of patients these days do,” Dr. van Dis told this news organization.

Dr. Van Dis speculated that factors related to the environment, including air pollution and endocrine disrupters, could contribute to elevated rates of hypertensive disorders.

Natalie Bello, MD, MPH, director of hypertension research at Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said rates of hypertension today could be even higher than in the study.

The CDC report relied on pre-COVID data, and the pandemic “increased disparities in health outcomes,” Dr. Bello said in an interview. “I’m worried that in actuality these numbers are an underestimation of the current state of hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Bello, who has studied the need for better training in cardio-obstetrics, applauded Vice President Kamala Harris’ efforts to improve maternal health.

“The racial and geographic disparities that we continue to see in the field are disheartening but should be a call to action to redouble our work to improve maternal outcomes,” Dr. Bello told this news organization. “The good news is that a lot of morbidity related to hypertension can be avoided with timely diagnosis and treatment of blood pressure. However, we need to act to provide all pregnant persons with optimal care.”

Janet Wright, MD, director of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, said blood pressure home monitoring is a “great example” of a strategy clinicians can use to identify and manage patients with hypertension.

But one approach – self-monitoring blood pressure from home during pregnancy – did not significantly improve the health of pregnant women, according to new results from randomized trials in the United Kingdom.

Trial results published in JAMA show that blood pressure home-monitoring coupled to telemonitoring, as compared with usual care, did not significantly improve blood pressure control among patients with chronic or gestational hypertension.

A second trial published in JAMA that included patients at risk for preeclampsia found that self-monitoring with telemonitoring did not lead to significantly earlier diagnoses of hypertension.

“Individuals at risk for a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, or with gestational or chronic hypertension, cannot be treated with a single approach,” Malavika Prabhu, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and coauthors write in an editorial accompanying the JAMA studies. Although the data suggest that self-monitoring of blood pressure is practical and tolerated, “More research is needed to determine optimal, high-value, equitable approaches to averting adverse perinatal outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” they write.

The CDC study authors and Dr. van Dis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bello is funded by the National Institutes of Health to study blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. The JAMA editorial authors disclosed university, government, and corporate grants and work with publishing companies.

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

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy affect nearly 16% of women who give birth in U.S. hospitals and appear to be increasing, according to an April 29 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Older patients and Black women are substantially more likely to experience hypertension in pregnancy, the analysis found.

“Addressing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy is a key strategy in reducing inequities in pregnancy-related mortality,” study coauthor Wanda Barfield, MD, MPH, director of CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, said in a statement.
 

Age, obesity, diabetes

The overall prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% in 2017 to 15.9% in 2019, the researchers reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The uptick in hypertension coincides with trends toward older maternal age and higher rates of obesity and diabetes, which may explain the increase, they said.

For the study, Dr. Barfield and her colleagues analyzed nationally representative data from the National Inpatient Sample. They identified patients with a diagnosis of chronic hypertension, pregnancy-associated hypertension, or unspecified maternal hypertension during their hospitalization.

Among women aged 45-55 years, the prevalence of hypertension was 31%. Among those aged 35-44 years, it was 18%.

Hypertension diagnoses were more common in women who were Black (20.9%) or American Indian or Alaska Native (16.4%), than in other groups.

Of patients who died during delivery hospitalization, 31.6% had a hypertensive disorder.

The study shows a marked increase in hypertensive disorders over a relatively short time, according to Jane van Dis, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who was not involved in the research. The phenomenon is consistent with her own experience, she said.

“When I am admitting patients, I’m oftentimes surprised when someone does not have a hypertensive disorder because I feel like the majority of patients these days do,” Dr. van Dis told this news organization.

Dr. Van Dis speculated that factors related to the environment, including air pollution and endocrine disrupters, could contribute to elevated rates of hypertensive disorders.

Natalie Bello, MD, MPH, director of hypertension research at Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said rates of hypertension today could be even higher than in the study.

The CDC report relied on pre-COVID data, and the pandemic “increased disparities in health outcomes,” Dr. Bello said in an interview. “I’m worried that in actuality these numbers are an underestimation of the current state of hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Bello, who has studied the need for better training in cardio-obstetrics, applauded Vice President Kamala Harris’ efforts to improve maternal health.

“The racial and geographic disparities that we continue to see in the field are disheartening but should be a call to action to redouble our work to improve maternal outcomes,” Dr. Bello told this news organization. “The good news is that a lot of morbidity related to hypertension can be avoided with timely diagnosis and treatment of blood pressure. However, we need to act to provide all pregnant persons with optimal care.”

Janet Wright, MD, director of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, said blood pressure home monitoring is a “great example” of a strategy clinicians can use to identify and manage patients with hypertension.

But one approach – self-monitoring blood pressure from home during pregnancy – did not significantly improve the health of pregnant women, according to new results from randomized trials in the United Kingdom.

Trial results published in JAMA show that blood pressure home-monitoring coupled to telemonitoring, as compared with usual care, did not significantly improve blood pressure control among patients with chronic or gestational hypertension.

A second trial published in JAMA that included patients at risk for preeclampsia found that self-monitoring with telemonitoring did not lead to significantly earlier diagnoses of hypertension.

“Individuals at risk for a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, or with gestational or chronic hypertension, cannot be treated with a single approach,” Malavika Prabhu, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and coauthors write in an editorial accompanying the JAMA studies. Although the data suggest that self-monitoring of blood pressure is practical and tolerated, “More research is needed to determine optimal, high-value, equitable approaches to averting adverse perinatal outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” they write.

The CDC study authors and Dr. van Dis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bello is funded by the National Institutes of Health to study blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. The JAMA editorial authors disclosed university, government, and corporate grants and work with publishing companies.

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

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy affect nearly 16% of women who give birth in U.S. hospitals and appear to be increasing, according to an April 29 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Older patients and Black women are substantially more likely to experience hypertension in pregnancy, the analysis found.

“Addressing hypertensive disorders in pregnancy is a key strategy in reducing inequities in pregnancy-related mortality,” study coauthor Wanda Barfield, MD, MPH, director of CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, said in a statement.
 

Age, obesity, diabetes

The overall prevalence of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy increased from 13.3% in 2017 to 15.9% in 2019, the researchers reported in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The uptick in hypertension coincides with trends toward older maternal age and higher rates of obesity and diabetes, which may explain the increase, they said.

For the study, Dr. Barfield and her colleagues analyzed nationally representative data from the National Inpatient Sample. They identified patients with a diagnosis of chronic hypertension, pregnancy-associated hypertension, or unspecified maternal hypertension during their hospitalization.

Among women aged 45-55 years, the prevalence of hypertension was 31%. Among those aged 35-44 years, it was 18%.

Hypertension diagnoses were more common in women who were Black (20.9%) or American Indian or Alaska Native (16.4%), than in other groups.

Of patients who died during delivery hospitalization, 31.6% had a hypertensive disorder.

The study shows a marked increase in hypertensive disorders over a relatively short time, according to Jane van Dis, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.), who was not involved in the research. The phenomenon is consistent with her own experience, she said.

“When I am admitting patients, I’m oftentimes surprised when someone does not have a hypertensive disorder because I feel like the majority of patients these days do,” Dr. van Dis told this news organization.

Dr. Van Dis speculated that factors related to the environment, including air pollution and endocrine disrupters, could contribute to elevated rates of hypertensive disorders.

Natalie Bello, MD, MPH, director of hypertension research at Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said rates of hypertension today could be even higher than in the study.

The CDC report relied on pre-COVID data, and the pandemic “increased disparities in health outcomes,” Dr. Bello said in an interview. “I’m worried that in actuality these numbers are an underestimation of the current state of hypertension in pregnancy.”

Dr. Bello, who has studied the need for better training in cardio-obstetrics, applauded Vice President Kamala Harris’ efforts to improve maternal health.

“The racial and geographic disparities that we continue to see in the field are disheartening but should be a call to action to redouble our work to improve maternal outcomes,” Dr. Bello told this news organization. “The good news is that a lot of morbidity related to hypertension can be avoided with timely diagnosis and treatment of blood pressure. However, we need to act to provide all pregnant persons with optimal care.”

Janet Wright, MD, director of CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, said blood pressure home monitoring is a “great example” of a strategy clinicians can use to identify and manage patients with hypertension.

But one approach – self-monitoring blood pressure from home during pregnancy – did not significantly improve the health of pregnant women, according to new results from randomized trials in the United Kingdom.

Trial results published in JAMA show that blood pressure home-monitoring coupled to telemonitoring, as compared with usual care, did not significantly improve blood pressure control among patients with chronic or gestational hypertension.

A second trial published in JAMA that included patients at risk for preeclampsia found that self-monitoring with telemonitoring did not lead to significantly earlier diagnoses of hypertension.

“Individuals at risk for a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, or with gestational or chronic hypertension, cannot be treated with a single approach,” Malavika Prabhu, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and coauthors write in an editorial accompanying the JAMA studies. Although the data suggest that self-monitoring of blood pressure is practical and tolerated, “More research is needed to determine optimal, high-value, equitable approaches to averting adverse perinatal outcomes associated with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” they write.

The CDC study authors and Dr. van Dis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bello is funded by the National Institutes of Health to study blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy. The JAMA editorial authors disclosed university, government, and corporate grants and work with publishing companies.

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

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

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

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

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

New research suggests physicians face a Herculean task to get Americans with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to take high-intensity statins, despite multiple professional guidelines giving the therapy their highest level recommendation.

Results from more 600,000 commercially insured patients with established ASCVD showed:

• Only one in five patients (22.5%) were taking a high-intensity statin.
• 27.6% were taking a low- or moderate-intensity statin.
• One-half (49.9%) were not taking any statin.

“It’s embarrassing,” senior author Christopher B. Granger, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “It should be embarrassing for anybody in health care that we do such a terrible job with something so simple and effective.”

The results were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk for ASCVD events by about 30%, with an added 15% reduction with a high-intensity formulation. The class I recommendation for high-intensity statin use in ASCVD patients younger than 75 years in the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines prompted a jump in prescriptions that plateaued by 2017.

A class II recommendation was added to the 2018 guideline update for high-intensity statins in adults older than 75 years with ASCVD. But underuse persists, despite falling prices with generic availability and initiatives to improve statin adoption, the authors noted.

“There are a lot of barriers for patients to statin use, including the misinformation on the Internet and elsewhere that statins have all kinds of side effects,” Dr. Granger said. “They have uncommon side effects, but when we look at it carefully, only about 10% of patients, even with statin intolerance, have true intolerance.”

Efforts are needed to better understand and address these barriers, particularly for younger and female patients, he noted.

In multivariate analyses, patients who were middle-aged (odds ratio, 2.66) or at least 75 years of age (OR, 2.09) were more than twice as likely as patients younger than 45 years to be on any statin.

Not surprisingly, women were 30% less likely than men to receive a statin (OR, 0.70), Dr. Granger said. A high Charlson comorbidity score (OR, 0.72) and peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.55) also reduced the odds of a statin prescription.

Among statin users, middle-aged (OR, 0.83) and older (OR, 0.44) patients were less likely to be on a high-intensity statin, as were women (OR, 0.68) and patients with peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.43).

Visiting a cardiologist in the previous 12 months, however, increased the odds a patient was on a high-intensity statin (OR, 1.21), as did the use of other LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs (OR, 1.44).

“With no evidence of heterogeneity in efficacy by sex, ongoing work must not only address misperceptions and barriers to the prescription of high-intensity statins in women, but also further understand (and address) differences in tolerability, which may be related to sex-based variation in statin metabolism,” wrote the authors, led by Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, MBA, MPH, also from Duke.

The study involved 601,934 patients (mean age, 67.5 years) who had a diagnosis of ASCVD between Jan. 31, 2018, and an index date of Jan. 31, 2019, and were enrolled in the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment database.

Two-thirds (70.9%) of patients visited a cardiologist in the 12 months prior to the index date, and three-fourths (81.3%) visited a primary care provider.

Pharmacy claims for the 12 months after the index date showed 82.8% of high-intensity users at index achieved coverage for at least 75% of days. Those with the least adherence (< 50% of days covered) included younger patients, as well as those with chronic kidney disease or depression.

“We need implementation research. What are the tools and the methods that we can use to improve the proportion of patients who are having the life-saving benefits from statins?” Dr. Granger said.

He noted that the team has submitted a National Institutes of Health grant to try to use pharmacists, as a mechanism within the context of health systems and payer systems, to improve the appropriate use of statins in a randomized trial. “I think that’s a win.”

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, and Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and colleagues point out in a related editorial that the rates of statin usage in the study are “considerably lower” than in other contemporary studies, where about 80% and 50% of ASCVD patients are receiving statins and high-intensity statins, respectively.

Possible explanations are the use of rule-out codes, a short medication fill window from the index date, or issues with medication capture, they said. “Nevertheless, the findings are largely consistent with other work highlighting low use of statin therapy.”

The editorialists said social media, statin-related adverse effects, and therapeutic inertia are key drivers of non–guideline-concordant statin use. Possible solutions include improving guideline dissemination, leveraging team-based care, using smart clinical decision-support tools at the point of care, and identifying trustworthy and easily understood sources of information for patients.

“We can only hope that the fate of statin therapy is not repeated with sodium-glucose cotranspoerter-2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in another 30 years, or worse yet, that continued gaps in statin therapy use in patients with ASCVD persist 30 years from now,” Dr. Virani and colleagues concluded.

A sliver of optimism?

A research letter by Colantonio et al. in the same issue of JACC points to some positive steps, at least among patients having a myocardial infarction (MI). It reported that the percentage of patients who received a high-intensity statin as their first statin prescription 30 days after MI jumped from 30.7% in the first quarter of 2011 to 78.6% in the fourth quarter of 2019.

Similar increases were reported by race/ethnicity, despite statin use previously shown to be lower among non-Hispanic Black patients with ASCVD. In each calendar year, however, high-intensity statin therapy was lower among patients older than 75 years and among women.

Dr. Granger disclosed ties with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AKROS, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic Foundation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor Therapeutics, Correvio, Espero BioPharma, Medscape, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Virani disclosed ties with the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, the World Heart Federation, and the Jooma and Tahir Family, and the American College of Cardiology.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mavacamten (Camzyos, Bristol Myers Squibb) to improve functional capacity and symptoms in adults with symptomatic New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM).

Mavacamten is the first FDA-approved allosteric and reversible inhibitor selective for cardiac myosin that targets the underlying pathophysiology of the genetic disorder. It’s available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg capsules.

“The approval of Camzyos represents a significant milestone for appropriate symptomatic obstructive HCM patients and their families, who have long awaited a new treatment option for this chronic and progressive disease,” Anjali T. Owens, MD, medical director of the Center for Inherited Cardiac Disease and assistant professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
 

‘Revolutionary’ change

The approval of mavacamten was based on data from the pivotal EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) trial of adults with symptomatic NYHA class II-III oHCM.

In EXPLORER-HCM, treatment with mavacamten over 30 weeks led to significant improvement in exercise capacity, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, NYHA functional class, and health status, as reported by this news organization.

The safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase of EXPLORER-LTE were maintained in patients who continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks.

Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for the treatment of oHCM, Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said during a press briefing earlier this month at the American College of Cardiology 2022 Scientific Session earlier this month.

“Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” Dr. Guglin said.

The product information for mavacamten includes a boxed warning citing a risk for heart failure.

Echocardiogram assessments of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are required before and during treatment.

Starting mavacamten in patients with LVEF below 55% is not recommended and the drug should be interrupted if LVEF falls below 50% at any visit or if the patient experiences heart failure symptoms or worsening clinical status.

Concomitant use of mavacamten with certain cytochrome P450 inhibitors or discontinuation of certain cytochrome P450 inducers can increase the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction. Therefore, its use is contraindicated in patients using moderate to strong CYP2C19 inhibitors or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, and moderate to strong CYP2C19 inducers or moderate to strong CYP3A4 inducers.

Because of the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction, mavacamten is only available through the Camzyos Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mavacamten (Camzyos, Bristol Myers Squibb) to improve functional capacity and symptoms in adults with symptomatic New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM).

Mavacamten is the first FDA-approved allosteric and reversible inhibitor selective for cardiac myosin that targets the underlying pathophysiology of the genetic disorder. It’s available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg capsules.

“The approval of Camzyos represents a significant milestone for appropriate symptomatic obstructive HCM patients and their families, who have long awaited a new treatment option for this chronic and progressive disease,” Anjali T. Owens, MD, medical director of the Center for Inherited Cardiac Disease and assistant professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
 

‘Revolutionary’ change

The approval of mavacamten was based on data from the pivotal EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) trial of adults with symptomatic NYHA class II-III oHCM.

In EXPLORER-HCM, treatment with mavacamten over 30 weeks led to significant improvement in exercise capacity, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, NYHA functional class, and health status, as reported by this news organization.

The safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase of EXPLORER-LTE were maintained in patients who continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks.

Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for the treatment of oHCM, Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said during a press briefing earlier this month at the American College of Cardiology 2022 Scientific Session earlier this month.

“Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” Dr. Guglin said.

The product information for mavacamten includes a boxed warning citing a risk for heart failure.

Echocardiogram assessments of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are required before and during treatment.

Starting mavacamten in patients with LVEF below 55% is not recommended and the drug should be interrupted if LVEF falls below 50% at any visit or if the patient experiences heart failure symptoms or worsening clinical status.

Concomitant use of mavacamten with certain cytochrome P450 inhibitors or discontinuation of certain cytochrome P450 inducers can increase the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction. Therefore, its use is contraindicated in patients using moderate to strong CYP2C19 inhibitors or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, and moderate to strong CYP2C19 inducers or moderate to strong CYP3A4 inducers.

Because of the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction, mavacamten is only available through the Camzyos Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved mavacamten (Camzyos, Bristol Myers Squibb) to improve functional capacity and symptoms in adults with symptomatic New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM).

Mavacamten is the first FDA-approved allosteric and reversible inhibitor selective for cardiac myosin that targets the underlying pathophysiology of the genetic disorder. It’s available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg capsules.

“The approval of Camzyos represents a significant milestone for appropriate symptomatic obstructive HCM patients and their families, who have long awaited a new treatment option for this chronic and progressive disease,” Anjali T. Owens, MD, medical director of the Center for Inherited Cardiac Disease and assistant professor of medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
 

‘Revolutionary’ change

The approval of mavacamten was based on data from the pivotal EXPLORER-HCM and EXPLORER-LTE (long-term extension) trial of adults with symptomatic NYHA class II-III oHCM.

In EXPLORER-HCM, treatment with mavacamten over 30 weeks led to significant improvement in exercise capacity, left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, NYHA functional class, and health status, as reported by this news organization.

The safety and efficacy findings seen at the end of the blinded, randomized, initial 30-week phase of EXPLORER-LTE were maintained in patients who continued treatment for a median of about 62 weeks.

Mavacamten represents “an almost revolutionary change” for the treatment of oHCM, Maya E. Guglin, MD, professor of clinical medicine and an advanced heart failure physician at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said during a press briefing earlier this month at the American College of Cardiology 2022 Scientific Session earlier this month.

“Until now, there was no good medical treatment for symptomatic oHCM. This will change the landscape, and without question it will change guidelines for treating oHCM,” Dr. Guglin said.

The product information for mavacamten includes a boxed warning citing a risk for heart failure.

Echocardiogram assessments of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are required before and during treatment.

Starting mavacamten in patients with LVEF below 55% is not recommended and the drug should be interrupted if LVEF falls below 50% at any visit or if the patient experiences heart failure symptoms or worsening clinical status.

Concomitant use of mavacamten with certain cytochrome P450 inhibitors or discontinuation of certain cytochrome P450 inducers can increase the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction. Therefore, its use is contraindicated in patients using moderate to strong CYP2C19 inhibitors or strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, and moderate to strong CYP2C19 inducers or moderate to strong CYP3A4 inducers.

Because of the risk for heart failure attributable to systolic dysfunction, mavacamten is only available through the Camzyos Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

Patients implanted with the Medtronic HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump causing the pump to malfunction, the Food and Drug Administration said in a letter to health care professionals. 

Medtronic has sent providers an urgent medical device notice about the pump weld defect and is trying to identify which HVAD pumps are affected.

The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it has been fraught with problems.

This past June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization. 
 

Pump thrombosis

Medtronic has received complaints of suspected pump thrombosis in three patients with the HVAD System.

All three patients presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: grinding sound, transient power spikes on log files and high watt alarms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and low motor speed resulting in low perfusion or dizziness or lightheadedness.

Inspection of the returned pumps in these three cases identified a malfunction of the internal pump. The pumps were exchanged in all three patients. Two patients died after the pump exchange.

The FDA does not recommend the elective removal of properly functioning systems.

“Decisions about removing or exchanging the Medtronic HVAD System should be made by health care providers and patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the patient’s clinical status and surgical risks,” the agency advised.

Patients who present with one or more of the signs or symptoms of pump thrombosis should be first treated for pump thrombosis.

If symptoms fail to resolve, providers may consider whether the patient is a candidate for pump exchange, heart transplant, or pump explant for recovery, taking into account the patient’s clinical condition and surgical risks.

For patients with any of the signs and symptoms of pump thrombosis, logfiles from the controller should be uploaded to Medtronic.

The FDA is working with Medtronic to monitor for any adverse events related to pump weld defects and ensure patients with the HVAD implant continue to receive appropriate follow-up monitoring.

Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Patients implanted with the Medtronic HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump causing the pump to malfunction, the Food and Drug Administration said in a letter to health care professionals. 

Medtronic has sent providers an urgent medical device notice about the pump weld defect and is trying to identify which HVAD pumps are affected.

The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it has been fraught with problems.

This past June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization. 
 

Pump thrombosis

Medtronic has received complaints of suspected pump thrombosis in three patients with the HVAD System.

All three patients presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: grinding sound, transient power spikes on log files and high watt alarms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and low motor speed resulting in low perfusion or dizziness or lightheadedness.

Inspection of the returned pumps in these three cases identified a malfunction of the internal pump. The pumps were exchanged in all three patients. Two patients died after the pump exchange.

The FDA does not recommend the elective removal of properly functioning systems.

“Decisions about removing or exchanging the Medtronic HVAD System should be made by health care providers and patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the patient’s clinical status and surgical risks,” the agency advised.

Patients who present with one or more of the signs or symptoms of pump thrombosis should be first treated for pump thrombosis.

If symptoms fail to resolve, providers may consider whether the patient is a candidate for pump exchange, heart transplant, or pump explant for recovery, taking into account the patient’s clinical condition and surgical risks.

For patients with any of the signs and symptoms of pump thrombosis, logfiles from the controller should be uploaded to Medtronic.

The FDA is working with Medtronic to monitor for any adverse events related to pump weld defects and ensure patients with the HVAD implant continue to receive appropriate follow-up monitoring.

Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Patients implanted with the Medtronic HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) System who develop pump thrombosis could have a welding defect in the internal pump causing the pump to malfunction, the Food and Drug Administration said in a letter to health care professionals. 

Medtronic has sent providers an urgent medical device notice about the pump weld defect and is trying to identify which HVAD pumps are affected.

The Medtronic HVAD System was approved as a bridge to heart transplantation in 2012. Since then, it has been fraught with problems.

This past June, the company announced it was stopping all sales of the device and advised physicians to stop implanting it, as reported by this news organization. 
 

Pump thrombosis

Medtronic has received complaints of suspected pump thrombosis in three patients with the HVAD System.

All three patients presented with one or more of the following signs or symptoms: grinding sound, transient power spikes on log files and high watt alarms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and low motor speed resulting in low perfusion or dizziness or lightheadedness.

Inspection of the returned pumps in these three cases identified a malfunction of the internal pump. The pumps were exchanged in all three patients. Two patients died after the pump exchange.

The FDA does not recommend the elective removal of properly functioning systems.

“Decisions about removing or exchanging the Medtronic HVAD System should be made by health care providers and patients on a case-by-case basis, considering the patient’s clinical status and surgical risks,” the agency advised.

Patients who present with one or more of the signs or symptoms of pump thrombosis should be first treated for pump thrombosis.

If symptoms fail to resolve, providers may consider whether the patient is a candidate for pump exchange, heart transplant, or pump explant for recovery, taking into account the patient’s clinical condition and surgical risks.

For patients with any of the signs and symptoms of pump thrombosis, logfiles from the controller should be uploaded to Medtronic.

The FDA is working with Medtronic to monitor for any adverse events related to pump weld defects and ensure patients with the HVAD implant continue to receive appropriate follow-up monitoring.

Problems related to the Medtronic HVAD System should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

Deaths from COVID-19 may have caught more attention lately, but heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States.

More than 300,000 Americans will die this year of sudden cardiac arrest (also called sudden cardiac death, or SCD), when the heart abruptly stops working.

These events happen suddenly and often without warning, making them nearly impossible to predict. But that may be changing, thanks to 3D imaging and artificial intelligence (AI) technology under study at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Svisio/Thinkstock

There, researchers are working to create more accurate and personalized models of the heart – and not just any heart, your heart, if you have heart disease.

“Right now, a clinician can only say whether a patient is at risk or not at risk for sudden death,” says Dan Popescu, PhD, a Johns Hopkins research scientist and first author of a new study on AI’s ability to predict sudden cardiac arrest. “With this new technology, you can have much more nuanced predictions of probability of an event over time.”

Put another way: With AI, clinicians may be able not only to predict if someone is at risk for sudden cardiac arrest, but also when it is most likely to happen. They can do this using a much clearer and more personalized look at the electrical “wiring” of your heart.
 

Your heart, the conductor

Your heart isn’t just a metronome responsible for keeping a steady stream of blood pumping to tissues with every beat. It’s also a conductor through which vital energy flows.

To make the heart beat, electrical impulses flow from the top to the bottom of the organ. Healthy heart cells relay this electricity seamlessly. But in a heart damaged by inflammation or a past heart attack, scar tissue will block the energy flow.

When an electrical impulse encounters a scarred area, the signal can become erratic, disrupting the set top-to-bottom path and causing irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias), which increase someone’s danger of sudden cardiac death.
 

Seeing the heart in 3D

Today’s tests offer some insights into the heart’s makeup. For example, MRI scans can reveal damaged areas. PET scans can show inflammation. And EKGs can record the heart’s electrical signals from beat to beat.

But all these technologies offer only a snapshot, showing heart health at a moment in time. They can’t predict the future. That’s why scientists at Johns Hopkins are going further to develop 3D digital replicas of a person’s heart, known as computational heart models.

Computational models are computer-simulated replicas that combine mathematics, physics, and computer science. These models have been around for a long time and are used in many fields, ranging from manufacturing to economics.

In heart medicine, these models are populated with digital “cells,” which imitate living cells and can be programmed with different electrical properties, depending on whether they are healthy or diseased.

“Currently available imaging and testing (MRIs, PETs, EKGs) give some representation of the scarring, but you cannot translate that to what is going to happen over time,” says Natalia Trayanova, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins department of biomedical engineering.

“With computational heart models, we create a dynamic digital image of the heart. We can then give the digital image an electrical stimulus and assess how the heart is able to respond. Then you can better predict what is going to happen.”

The computerized 3D models also mean better, more accurate treatment for heart conditions.

For example, a common treatment for a type of arrhythmia known as atrial fibrillation is ablation, or burning some heart tissue. Ablation stops the erratic electrical impulses causing the arrhythmia, but it can also damage otherwise healthy heart cells.

A personalized computational heart model could allow doctors to see more accurately what areas should and shouldn’t be treated for a specific patient.
 

Using deep learning AI to predict health outcomes

Dr. Trayanova’s colleague Dr. Popescu is applying deep learning and AI to do more with computerized heart models to predict the future.

In a recent paper in Nature Cardiovascular Research, the research team showed their algorithm assessed the health of 269 patients and was able to predict the chance of sudden cardiac arrest up to 10 years in advance.

“This is really the first time ever, as far as we know, where deep learning technology has been proven to analyze scarring of the heart in a successful way,” Dr. Popescu says.

Dr. Popescu and Dr. Trayanova say the AI algorithm gathers information from the 3D computational heart models with patient data like MRIs, ethnicity, age, lifestyle, and other clinical information. Analyzing all these data can produce accurate and consistent estimates about how long patients might live if they are at risk for sudden death.

“You can’t afford to be wrong. If you are wrong, you can actually impact a patient’s quality of life dramatically,” Dr. Popescu says. “Having clinicians use this technology in the decision-making process will provide confidence in a better diagnosis and prognosis.”

While the current study was specifically about patients with a particular type of heart disease, Dr. Popescu says his algorithm can also be trained to assess other health conditions.

So when might you see this being used outside of a research study? Dr. Trayanova predicts 3D imaging of heart models could be available in 2 years, but first the technique must be tested in more clinical trials – some of which are happening right now.

Adding AI to the heart models will require more studies and Food and Drug Administration approval, so the timeline is less clear. But perhaps the biggest hurdle is that after approval the technologies would need to be adopted and used by clinicians and caregivers.

“The much harder question to answer is, ‘When will doctors be perfectly comfortable with AI tools?’ And I don’t know the answer,” Dr. Popescu says. “How to use AI as an aid in the decision-making process is something that’s not currently taught.”

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

Deaths from COVID-19 may have caught more attention lately, but heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States.

More than 300,000 Americans will die this year of sudden cardiac arrest (also called sudden cardiac death, or SCD), when the heart abruptly stops working.

These events happen suddenly and often without warning, making them nearly impossible to predict. But that may be changing, thanks to 3D imaging and artificial intelligence (AI) technology under study at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Svisio/Thinkstock

There, researchers are working to create more accurate and personalized models of the heart – and not just any heart, your heart, if you have heart disease.

“Right now, a clinician can only say whether a patient is at risk or not at risk for sudden death,” says Dan Popescu, PhD, a Johns Hopkins research scientist and first author of a new study on AI’s ability to predict sudden cardiac arrest. “With this new technology, you can have much more nuanced predictions of probability of an event over time.”

Put another way: With AI, clinicians may be able not only to predict if someone is at risk for sudden cardiac arrest, but also when it is most likely to happen. They can do this using a much clearer and more personalized look at the electrical “wiring” of your heart.
 

Your heart, the conductor

Your heart isn’t just a metronome responsible for keeping a steady stream of blood pumping to tissues with every beat. It’s also a conductor through which vital energy flows.

To make the heart beat, electrical impulses flow from the top to the bottom of the organ. Healthy heart cells relay this electricity seamlessly. But in a heart damaged by inflammation or a past heart attack, scar tissue will block the energy flow.

When an electrical impulse encounters a scarred area, the signal can become erratic, disrupting the set top-to-bottom path and causing irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias), which increase someone’s danger of sudden cardiac death.
 

Seeing the heart in 3D

Today’s tests offer some insights into the heart’s makeup. For example, MRI scans can reveal damaged areas. PET scans can show inflammation. And EKGs can record the heart’s electrical signals from beat to beat.

But all these technologies offer only a snapshot, showing heart health at a moment in time. They can’t predict the future. That’s why scientists at Johns Hopkins are going further to develop 3D digital replicas of a person’s heart, known as computational heart models.

Computational models are computer-simulated replicas that combine mathematics, physics, and computer science. These models have been around for a long time and are used in many fields, ranging from manufacturing to economics.

In heart medicine, these models are populated with digital “cells,” which imitate living cells and can be programmed with different electrical properties, depending on whether they are healthy or diseased.

“Currently available imaging and testing (MRIs, PETs, EKGs) give some representation of the scarring, but you cannot translate that to what is going to happen over time,” says Natalia Trayanova, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins department of biomedical engineering.

“With computational heart models, we create a dynamic digital image of the heart. We can then give the digital image an electrical stimulus and assess how the heart is able to respond. Then you can better predict what is going to happen.”

The computerized 3D models also mean better, more accurate treatment for heart conditions.

For example, a common treatment for a type of arrhythmia known as atrial fibrillation is ablation, or burning some heart tissue. Ablation stops the erratic electrical impulses causing the arrhythmia, but it can also damage otherwise healthy heart cells.

A personalized computational heart model could allow doctors to see more accurately what areas should and shouldn’t be treated for a specific patient.
 

Using deep learning AI to predict health outcomes

Dr. Trayanova’s colleague Dr. Popescu is applying deep learning and AI to do more with computerized heart models to predict the future.

In a recent paper in Nature Cardiovascular Research, the research team showed their algorithm assessed the health of 269 patients and was able to predict the chance of sudden cardiac arrest up to 10 years in advance.

“This is really the first time ever, as far as we know, where deep learning technology has been proven to analyze scarring of the heart in a successful way,” Dr. Popescu says.

Dr. Popescu and Dr. Trayanova say the AI algorithm gathers information from the 3D computational heart models with patient data like MRIs, ethnicity, age, lifestyle, and other clinical information. Analyzing all these data can produce accurate and consistent estimates about how long patients might live if they are at risk for sudden death.

“You can’t afford to be wrong. If you are wrong, you can actually impact a patient’s quality of life dramatically,” Dr. Popescu says. “Having clinicians use this technology in the decision-making process will provide confidence in a better diagnosis and prognosis.”

While the current study was specifically about patients with a particular type of heart disease, Dr. Popescu says his algorithm can also be trained to assess other health conditions.

So when might you see this being used outside of a research study? Dr. Trayanova predicts 3D imaging of heart models could be available in 2 years, but first the technique must be tested in more clinical trials – some of which are happening right now.

Adding AI to the heart models will require more studies and Food and Drug Administration approval, so the timeline is less clear. But perhaps the biggest hurdle is that after approval the technologies would need to be adopted and used by clinicians and caregivers.

“The much harder question to answer is, ‘When will doctors be perfectly comfortable with AI tools?’ And I don’t know the answer,” Dr. Popescu says. “How to use AI as an aid in the decision-making process is something that’s not currently taught.”

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

Deaths from COVID-19 may have caught more attention lately, but heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States.

More than 300,000 Americans will die this year of sudden cardiac arrest (also called sudden cardiac death, or SCD), when the heart abruptly stops working.

These events happen suddenly and often without warning, making them nearly impossible to predict. But that may be changing, thanks to 3D imaging and artificial intelligence (AI) technology under study at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Svisio/Thinkstock

There, researchers are working to create more accurate and personalized models of the heart – and not just any heart, your heart, if you have heart disease.

“Right now, a clinician can only say whether a patient is at risk or not at risk for sudden death,” says Dan Popescu, PhD, a Johns Hopkins research scientist and first author of a new study on AI’s ability to predict sudden cardiac arrest. “With this new technology, you can have much more nuanced predictions of probability of an event over time.”

Put another way: With AI, clinicians may be able not only to predict if someone is at risk for sudden cardiac arrest, but also when it is most likely to happen. They can do this using a much clearer and more personalized look at the electrical “wiring” of your heart.
 

Your heart, the conductor

Your heart isn’t just a metronome responsible for keeping a steady stream of blood pumping to tissues with every beat. It’s also a conductor through which vital energy flows.

To make the heart beat, electrical impulses flow from the top to the bottom of the organ. Healthy heart cells relay this electricity seamlessly. But in a heart damaged by inflammation or a past heart attack, scar tissue will block the energy flow.

When an electrical impulse encounters a scarred area, the signal can become erratic, disrupting the set top-to-bottom path and causing irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias), which increase someone’s danger of sudden cardiac death.
 

Seeing the heart in 3D

Today’s tests offer some insights into the heart’s makeup. For example, MRI scans can reveal damaged areas. PET scans can show inflammation. And EKGs can record the heart’s electrical signals from beat to beat.

But all these technologies offer only a snapshot, showing heart health at a moment in time. They can’t predict the future. That’s why scientists at Johns Hopkins are going further to develop 3D digital replicas of a person’s heart, known as computational heart models.

Computational models are computer-simulated replicas that combine mathematics, physics, and computer science. These models have been around for a long time and are used in many fields, ranging from manufacturing to economics.

In heart medicine, these models are populated with digital “cells,” which imitate living cells and can be programmed with different electrical properties, depending on whether they are healthy or diseased.

“Currently available imaging and testing (MRIs, PETs, EKGs) give some representation of the scarring, but you cannot translate that to what is going to happen over time,” says Natalia Trayanova, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins department of biomedical engineering.

“With computational heart models, we create a dynamic digital image of the heart. We can then give the digital image an electrical stimulus and assess how the heart is able to respond. Then you can better predict what is going to happen.”

The computerized 3D models also mean better, more accurate treatment for heart conditions.

For example, a common treatment for a type of arrhythmia known as atrial fibrillation is ablation, or burning some heart tissue. Ablation stops the erratic electrical impulses causing the arrhythmia, but it can also damage otherwise healthy heart cells.

A personalized computational heart model could allow doctors to see more accurately what areas should and shouldn’t be treated for a specific patient.
 

Using deep learning AI to predict health outcomes

Dr. Trayanova’s colleague Dr. Popescu is applying deep learning and AI to do more with computerized heart models to predict the future.

In a recent paper in Nature Cardiovascular Research, the research team showed their algorithm assessed the health of 269 patients and was able to predict the chance of sudden cardiac arrest up to 10 years in advance.

“This is really the first time ever, as far as we know, where deep learning technology has been proven to analyze scarring of the heart in a successful way,” Dr. Popescu says.

Dr. Popescu and Dr. Trayanova say the AI algorithm gathers information from the 3D computational heart models with patient data like MRIs, ethnicity, age, lifestyle, and other clinical information. Analyzing all these data can produce accurate and consistent estimates about how long patients might live if they are at risk for sudden death.

“You can’t afford to be wrong. If you are wrong, you can actually impact a patient’s quality of life dramatically,” Dr. Popescu says. “Having clinicians use this technology in the decision-making process will provide confidence in a better diagnosis and prognosis.”

While the current study was specifically about patients with a particular type of heart disease, Dr. Popescu says his algorithm can also be trained to assess other health conditions.

So when might you see this being used outside of a research study? Dr. Trayanova predicts 3D imaging of heart models could be available in 2 years, but first the technique must be tested in more clinical trials – some of which are happening right now.

Adding AI to the heart models will require more studies and Food and Drug Administration approval, so the timeline is less clear. But perhaps the biggest hurdle is that after approval the technologies would need to be adopted and used by clinicians and caregivers.

“The much harder question to answer is, ‘When will doctors be perfectly comfortable with AI tools?’ And I don’t know the answer,” Dr. Popescu says. “How to use AI as an aid in the decision-making process is something that’s not currently taught.”

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