User login
Risk of MACE Comparable Among Biologic Classes for Psoriasis, PsA
TOPLINE:
a database analysis finds.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
- The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
- Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.
TAKEAWAY:
- Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
- There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.
IN PRACTICE:
Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
SOURCE:
Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
a database analysis finds.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
- The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
- Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.
TAKEAWAY:
- Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
- There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.
IN PRACTICE:
Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
SOURCE:
Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
a database analysis finds.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
- The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
- Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.
TAKEAWAY:
- Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
- There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.
IN PRACTICE:
Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
SOURCE:
Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.
DISCLOSURES:
Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New, Near-to-Market PCSK9s Could Help Patients Meet Cholesterol Targets
, experts said.
One new anti-PCSK9 agent — lerodalcibep from LIB Therapeutics — is a small protein molecule, which is expected to reach the market by early 2026. It is being positioned as a step forward from the two monoclonal antibody products already available — evolocumab (Repatha; Amgen) and alirocumab (Praluent; Sanofi/Regeneron).
The new option can be given less frequently than the antibodies with a once-a-month injection instead of every 2 weeks. It also does not need to be kept refrigerated like the antibodies, Evan Stein, MD, chief scientific and operating officer of LIB Therapeutics, said in an interview.
Two phase 3 trials have recently been reported, showing impressive reductions in LDL in patients already taking statins.
The LIBerate Trials
The LIBerate-HR trial, published in JAMA Cardiology, involved 922 patients who still had LDL above target despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy plus other lipid-lowering agents in some cases.
The trial found a time-averaged mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 62%.
“This large reduction resulted in more than 90% of patients reaching the new lower LDL targets set in recent guidelines of less than 55 mg/dL for patients with cardiovascular disease or at very high risk, and less than 70 mg/dL in patients at risk,” said Stein.
Another phase 3 trial, LIBerate-CVD, has also shown reductions in LDL cholesterol levels of more than 60% in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins.
LIB Therapeutics plans to file approval applications for lerodalcibep in the United States and Europe later this year.
A Crowded Field
Dr. Stein said PCSK9 inhibitors have been underused so far, but this is starting to change.
“The monoclonal antibodies were way overpriced costing around $14,000 per year when they were first introduced, which resulted in huge pushback from insurance companies,” Dr. Stein said, which made the drugs difficult to prescribe. “Then a few years ago, the price dropped a bit, and now they’re probably running at about $4000 per year, which made them more accessible.”
He said the market is now rapidly taking off. Lerodalcibep will compete in the anti-PCSK9 market with not only the two monoclonal antibodies but also with the new short-interfering RNA agent, inclisiran (Leqvio; Novartis) , a novel injectable agent that is given just twice a year but has to be administered at a medical facility.
Despite the crowded field, there appears to be plenty of room in the market. “Last year, growth was just under 40%. The first quarter of this year, it has increased by 44%. While the introduction of inclisiran has added to this growth, it hasn’t dented the sales of the existing monoclonal antibodies,” said Dr. Stein.
He estimates that the anti-PCSK9 market will reach $3 billion globally this year, and by the time lerodalcibep is launched, it could be worth $5 billion.
As well as inclisiran and lerodalcibep, there are other innovations in the anti-PCSK9 field in development, with oral drugs now also in the pipeline. The first one of these, in development by Merck, is in early phase 3 trials, and AstraZeneca has an oral agent in earlier development.
Enthusiastic Response
Other experts in the lipid field are also enthusiastic about new developments in the PCSK9s.
Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he welcomes the prospect of new approaches to PCSK9 inhibition.
“The increase in the number of safe, effective tools for LDL lowering, whether through PCSK9 or other targets, is inevitably beneficial for patients and the field,” he said during an interview.
Dr. Plutzky pointed out that although the current agents are effective, cost and coverage remain issues despite some recent progress in these areas, and new agents will increase competition and should hopefully drive prices down. Having a variety of dosing methods and frequencies provides more options for patients to find the one that works best for them.
Lerodalcibep’s once-monthly dosing schedule and the lack of need for refrigeration may be appreciated by some patients, he said, particularly those who need to travel for long periods.
Connie Newman, MD, adjunct professor of medicine at NYU School of Medicine, New York City, said there is plenty of room in the market to accommodate patient’s needs and preferences.
“Despite the US FDA approval of three medications that target PCSK9, there is a need for more anti-PCSK9 agents that reduce LDL and cardiovascular events,” she said. “In the US alone, 25% of adults have LDL levels of 130 mg/dL and above. Of all the non-statin therapies, medications targeting PCSK9 produce the greatest reduction in LDL. However, some patients may not tolerate one or more of the medications available or may prefer a monthly injection of lower volume.”
Dr. Newman said she believes there will still be a market for injectable formulations of PCSK9 inhibitors in the future, even if oral formulations are approved.
“Oral formulations usually require more frequent administration. Some people prefer longer-acting medications that can be taken less often. This might lead to better adherence,” she said.
Dr. Stein said he agrees there will always be room for different options. “And you only have to look at what is happening with the weight loss drugs to see that there is a market for injectables.” The ability to get patients to the new, more aggressive LDL goals is what is important, he added. “These drugs do that, and offering patients a choice of agents and delivery mechanisms is helpful.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, experts said.
One new anti-PCSK9 agent — lerodalcibep from LIB Therapeutics — is a small protein molecule, which is expected to reach the market by early 2026. It is being positioned as a step forward from the two monoclonal antibody products already available — evolocumab (Repatha; Amgen) and alirocumab (Praluent; Sanofi/Regeneron).
The new option can be given less frequently than the antibodies with a once-a-month injection instead of every 2 weeks. It also does not need to be kept refrigerated like the antibodies, Evan Stein, MD, chief scientific and operating officer of LIB Therapeutics, said in an interview.
Two phase 3 trials have recently been reported, showing impressive reductions in LDL in patients already taking statins.
The LIBerate Trials
The LIBerate-HR trial, published in JAMA Cardiology, involved 922 patients who still had LDL above target despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy plus other lipid-lowering agents in some cases.
The trial found a time-averaged mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 62%.
“This large reduction resulted in more than 90% of patients reaching the new lower LDL targets set in recent guidelines of less than 55 mg/dL for patients with cardiovascular disease or at very high risk, and less than 70 mg/dL in patients at risk,” said Stein.
Another phase 3 trial, LIBerate-CVD, has also shown reductions in LDL cholesterol levels of more than 60% in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins.
LIB Therapeutics plans to file approval applications for lerodalcibep in the United States and Europe later this year.
A Crowded Field
Dr. Stein said PCSK9 inhibitors have been underused so far, but this is starting to change.
“The monoclonal antibodies were way overpriced costing around $14,000 per year when they were first introduced, which resulted in huge pushback from insurance companies,” Dr. Stein said, which made the drugs difficult to prescribe. “Then a few years ago, the price dropped a bit, and now they’re probably running at about $4000 per year, which made them more accessible.”
He said the market is now rapidly taking off. Lerodalcibep will compete in the anti-PCSK9 market with not only the two monoclonal antibodies but also with the new short-interfering RNA agent, inclisiran (Leqvio; Novartis) , a novel injectable agent that is given just twice a year but has to be administered at a medical facility.
Despite the crowded field, there appears to be plenty of room in the market. “Last year, growth was just under 40%. The first quarter of this year, it has increased by 44%. While the introduction of inclisiran has added to this growth, it hasn’t dented the sales of the existing monoclonal antibodies,” said Dr. Stein.
He estimates that the anti-PCSK9 market will reach $3 billion globally this year, and by the time lerodalcibep is launched, it could be worth $5 billion.
As well as inclisiran and lerodalcibep, there are other innovations in the anti-PCSK9 field in development, with oral drugs now also in the pipeline. The first one of these, in development by Merck, is in early phase 3 trials, and AstraZeneca has an oral agent in earlier development.
Enthusiastic Response
Other experts in the lipid field are also enthusiastic about new developments in the PCSK9s.
Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he welcomes the prospect of new approaches to PCSK9 inhibition.
“The increase in the number of safe, effective tools for LDL lowering, whether through PCSK9 or other targets, is inevitably beneficial for patients and the field,” he said during an interview.
Dr. Plutzky pointed out that although the current agents are effective, cost and coverage remain issues despite some recent progress in these areas, and new agents will increase competition and should hopefully drive prices down. Having a variety of dosing methods and frequencies provides more options for patients to find the one that works best for them.
Lerodalcibep’s once-monthly dosing schedule and the lack of need for refrigeration may be appreciated by some patients, he said, particularly those who need to travel for long periods.
Connie Newman, MD, adjunct professor of medicine at NYU School of Medicine, New York City, said there is plenty of room in the market to accommodate patient’s needs and preferences.
“Despite the US FDA approval of three medications that target PCSK9, there is a need for more anti-PCSK9 agents that reduce LDL and cardiovascular events,” she said. “In the US alone, 25% of adults have LDL levels of 130 mg/dL and above. Of all the non-statin therapies, medications targeting PCSK9 produce the greatest reduction in LDL. However, some patients may not tolerate one or more of the medications available or may prefer a monthly injection of lower volume.”
Dr. Newman said she believes there will still be a market for injectable formulations of PCSK9 inhibitors in the future, even if oral formulations are approved.
“Oral formulations usually require more frequent administration. Some people prefer longer-acting medications that can be taken less often. This might lead to better adherence,” she said.
Dr. Stein said he agrees there will always be room for different options. “And you only have to look at what is happening with the weight loss drugs to see that there is a market for injectables.” The ability to get patients to the new, more aggressive LDL goals is what is important, he added. “These drugs do that, and offering patients a choice of agents and delivery mechanisms is helpful.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, experts said.
One new anti-PCSK9 agent — lerodalcibep from LIB Therapeutics — is a small protein molecule, which is expected to reach the market by early 2026. It is being positioned as a step forward from the two monoclonal antibody products already available — evolocumab (Repatha; Amgen) and alirocumab (Praluent; Sanofi/Regeneron).
The new option can be given less frequently than the antibodies with a once-a-month injection instead of every 2 weeks. It also does not need to be kept refrigerated like the antibodies, Evan Stein, MD, chief scientific and operating officer of LIB Therapeutics, said in an interview.
Two phase 3 trials have recently been reported, showing impressive reductions in LDL in patients already taking statins.
The LIBerate Trials
The LIBerate-HR trial, published in JAMA Cardiology, involved 922 patients who still had LDL above target despite taking maximally tolerated statin therapy plus other lipid-lowering agents in some cases.
The trial found a time-averaged mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 62%.
“This large reduction resulted in more than 90% of patients reaching the new lower LDL targets set in recent guidelines of less than 55 mg/dL for patients with cardiovascular disease or at very high risk, and less than 70 mg/dL in patients at risk,” said Stein.
Another phase 3 trial, LIBerate-CVD, has also shown reductions in LDL cholesterol levels of more than 60% in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease on maximally tolerated statins.
LIB Therapeutics plans to file approval applications for lerodalcibep in the United States and Europe later this year.
A Crowded Field
Dr. Stein said PCSK9 inhibitors have been underused so far, but this is starting to change.
“The monoclonal antibodies were way overpriced costing around $14,000 per year when they were first introduced, which resulted in huge pushback from insurance companies,” Dr. Stein said, which made the drugs difficult to prescribe. “Then a few years ago, the price dropped a bit, and now they’re probably running at about $4000 per year, which made them more accessible.”
He said the market is now rapidly taking off. Lerodalcibep will compete in the anti-PCSK9 market with not only the two monoclonal antibodies but also with the new short-interfering RNA agent, inclisiran (Leqvio; Novartis) , a novel injectable agent that is given just twice a year but has to be administered at a medical facility.
Despite the crowded field, there appears to be plenty of room in the market. “Last year, growth was just under 40%. The first quarter of this year, it has increased by 44%. While the introduction of inclisiran has added to this growth, it hasn’t dented the sales of the existing monoclonal antibodies,” said Dr. Stein.
He estimates that the anti-PCSK9 market will reach $3 billion globally this year, and by the time lerodalcibep is launched, it could be worth $5 billion.
As well as inclisiran and lerodalcibep, there are other innovations in the anti-PCSK9 field in development, with oral drugs now also in the pipeline. The first one of these, in development by Merck, is in early phase 3 trials, and AstraZeneca has an oral agent in earlier development.
Enthusiastic Response
Other experts in the lipid field are also enthusiastic about new developments in the PCSK9s.
Jorge Plutzky, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he welcomes the prospect of new approaches to PCSK9 inhibition.
“The increase in the number of safe, effective tools for LDL lowering, whether through PCSK9 or other targets, is inevitably beneficial for patients and the field,” he said during an interview.
Dr. Plutzky pointed out that although the current agents are effective, cost and coverage remain issues despite some recent progress in these areas, and new agents will increase competition and should hopefully drive prices down. Having a variety of dosing methods and frequencies provides more options for patients to find the one that works best for them.
Lerodalcibep’s once-monthly dosing schedule and the lack of need for refrigeration may be appreciated by some patients, he said, particularly those who need to travel for long periods.
Connie Newman, MD, adjunct professor of medicine at NYU School of Medicine, New York City, said there is plenty of room in the market to accommodate patient’s needs and preferences.
“Despite the US FDA approval of three medications that target PCSK9, there is a need for more anti-PCSK9 agents that reduce LDL and cardiovascular events,” she said. “In the US alone, 25% of adults have LDL levels of 130 mg/dL and above. Of all the non-statin therapies, medications targeting PCSK9 produce the greatest reduction in LDL. However, some patients may not tolerate one or more of the medications available or may prefer a monthly injection of lower volume.”
Dr. Newman said she believes there will still be a market for injectable formulations of PCSK9 inhibitors in the future, even if oral formulations are approved.
“Oral formulations usually require more frequent administration. Some people prefer longer-acting medications that can be taken less often. This might lead to better adherence,” she said.
Dr. Stein said he agrees there will always be room for different options. “And you only have to look at what is happening with the weight loss drugs to see that there is a market for injectables.” The ability to get patients to the new, more aggressive LDL goals is what is important, he added. “These drugs do that, and offering patients a choice of agents and delivery mechanisms is helpful.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Less Invasive, Overlooked Option in Cardiac Surgery May Offer Benefit
Compared with traditional replacement valves, sutureless valves placed through minimally invasive cardiac surgery have less data supporting their use but offer unique features that might make them the preferred option for certain patients, reported specialists.
The sutureless device known as Perceval (Corcym) and a rapidly deployed device called Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences) are used as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But despite being commercially available since 2016, the devices are still not being used much.
The devices are not discussed in substantial detail in either the joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association issued in 2020 or guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology issued in 2022.
Cristiano Spadaccio, MD, PhD, a cardiothoracic surgeon associated with Lancashire Cardiac Centre in Blackpool, England, and his colleagues reviewed the small number of studies evaluating the alternate approach to “make the cardiology world aware” of alternatives “that can relieve the surgical burden by minimizing the implantation time and length of the operation,” he said.
The comprehensive review is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A Neglected Alternative
The sutureless Perceval device is held in place by a stent frame that self-expands. The Intuity device also relies primarily on its framework to anchor the valve in place but does involve three sutures. Both devices are still referred to as sutureless in the new review of them.
Only a small number of centers perform minimally invasive cardiac surgeries, and the main advantage of the devices — rapid deployment — has been eroded with the advent of automated knotting which has significantly reduced the time to implant and sutured valve.
The underuse of these devices is largely caused by the limited amount of comparative and prospective data, said Dr. Spadaccio. “The entire literature on sutureless aortic valve replacement with the exception of one randomized controlled trial is observational.”
That trial, PERSIST-AVR, found that the sutureless valves were just as good as conventional ones when it comes to major adverse cardiovascular events including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention at 1 year.
In a subanalysis limited to patients who had isolated aortic valve replacement, the sutureless procedure was associated with lower adverse events (5.2% vs 10.8%) at the cost of a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11% vs 1.6%).
There are also multiple retrospective studies and registries that have generated observational data comparing sutureless aortic valve replacement with SAVR and TAVR in various patient populations, said Dr. Spadaccio, and the review was based on more than a dozen studies published since 2015. Long-term follow-up data for sutureless aortic valve replacements, which now exceeds 10 years, suggest rates of structural valve deterioration and reintervention have been acceptably low.
The minimally invasive procedures have other advantages too. For example, relative to the greater trauma associated with open heart surgery, minimally invasive surgeries typically involve faster recovery, an advantage likely to appeal to many patients who are candidates for either.
Quicker Recovery
Collectively, these data suggest that sutureless aortic valve replacement might be a reasonable or even a more appropriate alternative to either SAVR or TAVR when considering specific patient characteristics and goals, according to the review, which included an algorithm identifying specifically where sutureless aortic valve replacement fits with SAVR and TAVR.
“The algorithm is based on different clinical scenarios and reflects current guidelines for SAVR,” said Dr. Spadaccio. For example, current guidelines identify SAVR as preferred in patients younger than 65 years and in older patients with a low Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, but there are many instances in which sutureless aortic valve replacement might be more attractive, such as in those also undergoing mitral valve repair, coronary artery bypass grafting, or another surgical procedure.
Dr. Spadaccio said that the STS score should not be considered in isolation when evaluating a patient for SAVR or TAVR. Other features such as mobility, frailty score, and comorbid liver or renal disease should also be considered when discussing the three options with patients. As a result, the algorithm emphasizes a detailed evaluation of patient characteristics in selecting one procedure over another.
“The treatment should be really tailored on the individual patient basis,” said Dr. Spadaccio.
Dr. Spadaccio acknowledged that there is a need for more comparative trials, particularly in regard to sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative to TAVR. “I really think that a 1:1 RCT on sutureless aortic valve replacement vs TAVR could give better answers to all of these interrogatives.”
But despite the limitations outlined in this review, Dr. Spadaccio and colleagues challenged the perception that current data are not sufficient to allow clinicians to consider sutureless aortic valve replacement in the mix of options.
A Viable Option
This comprehensive summary of what is known about sutureless aortic valve replacement compared with the other options addresses an important knowledge gap, said S. Chris Malaisrie, MD, a cardiac surgeon at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
He said he agrees this option has unique qualities. “Minimally invasive surgery has been largely ignored by guideline writers, but patients certainly demand options that are less invasive than standard open heart surgery. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves facilitate minimally invasive surgery and offer an advantageous option for younger patients.”
Dr. Malaisrie said the review is generating discussion about a potentially valuable option within the cardiology community. And that is exactly what Dr. Spadaccio was hoping for. “This paper was meant to educate as much as possible on these details to assist and inform decision-making,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Compared with traditional replacement valves, sutureless valves placed through minimally invasive cardiac surgery have less data supporting their use but offer unique features that might make them the preferred option for certain patients, reported specialists.
The sutureless device known as Perceval (Corcym) and a rapidly deployed device called Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences) are used as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But despite being commercially available since 2016, the devices are still not being used much.
The devices are not discussed in substantial detail in either the joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association issued in 2020 or guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology issued in 2022.
Cristiano Spadaccio, MD, PhD, a cardiothoracic surgeon associated with Lancashire Cardiac Centre in Blackpool, England, and his colleagues reviewed the small number of studies evaluating the alternate approach to “make the cardiology world aware” of alternatives “that can relieve the surgical burden by minimizing the implantation time and length of the operation,” he said.
The comprehensive review is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A Neglected Alternative
The sutureless Perceval device is held in place by a stent frame that self-expands. The Intuity device also relies primarily on its framework to anchor the valve in place but does involve three sutures. Both devices are still referred to as sutureless in the new review of them.
Only a small number of centers perform minimally invasive cardiac surgeries, and the main advantage of the devices — rapid deployment — has been eroded with the advent of automated knotting which has significantly reduced the time to implant and sutured valve.
The underuse of these devices is largely caused by the limited amount of comparative and prospective data, said Dr. Spadaccio. “The entire literature on sutureless aortic valve replacement with the exception of one randomized controlled trial is observational.”
That trial, PERSIST-AVR, found that the sutureless valves were just as good as conventional ones when it comes to major adverse cardiovascular events including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention at 1 year.
In a subanalysis limited to patients who had isolated aortic valve replacement, the sutureless procedure was associated with lower adverse events (5.2% vs 10.8%) at the cost of a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11% vs 1.6%).
There are also multiple retrospective studies and registries that have generated observational data comparing sutureless aortic valve replacement with SAVR and TAVR in various patient populations, said Dr. Spadaccio, and the review was based on more than a dozen studies published since 2015. Long-term follow-up data for sutureless aortic valve replacements, which now exceeds 10 years, suggest rates of structural valve deterioration and reintervention have been acceptably low.
The minimally invasive procedures have other advantages too. For example, relative to the greater trauma associated with open heart surgery, minimally invasive surgeries typically involve faster recovery, an advantage likely to appeal to many patients who are candidates for either.
Quicker Recovery
Collectively, these data suggest that sutureless aortic valve replacement might be a reasonable or even a more appropriate alternative to either SAVR or TAVR when considering specific patient characteristics and goals, according to the review, which included an algorithm identifying specifically where sutureless aortic valve replacement fits with SAVR and TAVR.
“The algorithm is based on different clinical scenarios and reflects current guidelines for SAVR,” said Dr. Spadaccio. For example, current guidelines identify SAVR as preferred in patients younger than 65 years and in older patients with a low Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, but there are many instances in which sutureless aortic valve replacement might be more attractive, such as in those also undergoing mitral valve repair, coronary artery bypass grafting, or another surgical procedure.
Dr. Spadaccio said that the STS score should not be considered in isolation when evaluating a patient for SAVR or TAVR. Other features such as mobility, frailty score, and comorbid liver or renal disease should also be considered when discussing the three options with patients. As a result, the algorithm emphasizes a detailed evaluation of patient characteristics in selecting one procedure over another.
“The treatment should be really tailored on the individual patient basis,” said Dr. Spadaccio.
Dr. Spadaccio acknowledged that there is a need for more comparative trials, particularly in regard to sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative to TAVR. “I really think that a 1:1 RCT on sutureless aortic valve replacement vs TAVR could give better answers to all of these interrogatives.”
But despite the limitations outlined in this review, Dr. Spadaccio and colleagues challenged the perception that current data are not sufficient to allow clinicians to consider sutureless aortic valve replacement in the mix of options.
A Viable Option
This comprehensive summary of what is known about sutureless aortic valve replacement compared with the other options addresses an important knowledge gap, said S. Chris Malaisrie, MD, a cardiac surgeon at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
He said he agrees this option has unique qualities. “Minimally invasive surgery has been largely ignored by guideline writers, but patients certainly demand options that are less invasive than standard open heart surgery. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves facilitate minimally invasive surgery and offer an advantageous option for younger patients.”
Dr. Malaisrie said the review is generating discussion about a potentially valuable option within the cardiology community. And that is exactly what Dr. Spadaccio was hoping for. “This paper was meant to educate as much as possible on these details to assist and inform decision-making,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Compared with traditional replacement valves, sutureless valves placed through minimally invasive cardiac surgery have less data supporting their use but offer unique features that might make them the preferred option for certain patients, reported specialists.
The sutureless device known as Perceval (Corcym) and a rapidly deployed device called Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences) are used as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). But despite being commercially available since 2016, the devices are still not being used much.
The devices are not discussed in substantial detail in either the joint guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association issued in 2020 or guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology issued in 2022.
Cristiano Spadaccio, MD, PhD, a cardiothoracic surgeon associated with Lancashire Cardiac Centre in Blackpool, England, and his colleagues reviewed the small number of studies evaluating the alternate approach to “make the cardiology world aware” of alternatives “that can relieve the surgical burden by minimizing the implantation time and length of the operation,” he said.
The comprehensive review is published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A Neglected Alternative
The sutureless Perceval device is held in place by a stent frame that self-expands. The Intuity device also relies primarily on its framework to anchor the valve in place but does involve three sutures. Both devices are still referred to as sutureless in the new review of them.
Only a small number of centers perform minimally invasive cardiac surgeries, and the main advantage of the devices — rapid deployment — has been eroded with the advent of automated knotting which has significantly reduced the time to implant and sutured valve.
The underuse of these devices is largely caused by the limited amount of comparative and prospective data, said Dr. Spadaccio. “The entire literature on sutureless aortic valve replacement with the exception of one randomized controlled trial is observational.”
That trial, PERSIST-AVR, found that the sutureless valves were just as good as conventional ones when it comes to major adverse cardiovascular events including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or valve reintervention at 1 year.
In a subanalysis limited to patients who had isolated aortic valve replacement, the sutureless procedure was associated with lower adverse events (5.2% vs 10.8%) at the cost of a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (11% vs 1.6%).
There are also multiple retrospective studies and registries that have generated observational data comparing sutureless aortic valve replacement with SAVR and TAVR in various patient populations, said Dr. Spadaccio, and the review was based on more than a dozen studies published since 2015. Long-term follow-up data for sutureless aortic valve replacements, which now exceeds 10 years, suggest rates of structural valve deterioration and reintervention have been acceptably low.
The minimally invasive procedures have other advantages too. For example, relative to the greater trauma associated with open heart surgery, minimally invasive surgeries typically involve faster recovery, an advantage likely to appeal to many patients who are candidates for either.
Quicker Recovery
Collectively, these data suggest that sutureless aortic valve replacement might be a reasonable or even a more appropriate alternative to either SAVR or TAVR when considering specific patient characteristics and goals, according to the review, which included an algorithm identifying specifically where sutureless aortic valve replacement fits with SAVR and TAVR.
“The algorithm is based on different clinical scenarios and reflects current guidelines for SAVR,” said Dr. Spadaccio. For example, current guidelines identify SAVR as preferred in patients younger than 65 years and in older patients with a low Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score, but there are many instances in which sutureless aortic valve replacement might be more attractive, such as in those also undergoing mitral valve repair, coronary artery bypass grafting, or another surgical procedure.
Dr. Spadaccio said that the STS score should not be considered in isolation when evaluating a patient for SAVR or TAVR. Other features such as mobility, frailty score, and comorbid liver or renal disease should also be considered when discussing the three options with patients. As a result, the algorithm emphasizes a detailed evaluation of patient characteristics in selecting one procedure over another.
“The treatment should be really tailored on the individual patient basis,” said Dr. Spadaccio.
Dr. Spadaccio acknowledged that there is a need for more comparative trials, particularly in regard to sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative to TAVR. “I really think that a 1:1 RCT on sutureless aortic valve replacement vs TAVR could give better answers to all of these interrogatives.”
But despite the limitations outlined in this review, Dr. Spadaccio and colleagues challenged the perception that current data are not sufficient to allow clinicians to consider sutureless aortic valve replacement in the mix of options.
A Viable Option
This comprehensive summary of what is known about sutureless aortic valve replacement compared with the other options addresses an important knowledge gap, said S. Chris Malaisrie, MD, a cardiac surgeon at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
He said he agrees this option has unique qualities. “Minimally invasive surgery has been largely ignored by guideline writers, but patients certainly demand options that are less invasive than standard open heart surgery. Sutureless and rapid deployment valves facilitate minimally invasive surgery and offer an advantageous option for younger patients.”
Dr. Malaisrie said the review is generating discussion about a potentially valuable option within the cardiology community. And that is exactly what Dr. Spadaccio was hoping for. “This paper was meant to educate as much as possible on these details to assist and inform decision-making,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Will Treating High Blood Pressure Curb Dementia Risk?
High blood pressure is an established risk factor for neurodegeneration and cognitive decline.
Valentin Fuster, MD, president of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City, told this news organization. “There is no question in the literature that untreated high blood pressure may lead to dementia,” he said. “The open question is whether treating blood pressure is sufficient to decrease or stop the progress of dementia.”
Studies are mixed, but recent research suggests that addressing hypertension does affect the risk for dementia. A secondary analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project reported at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions in 2023 but not yet published showed that the 4-year blood pressure–lowering program in adults aged 40 or older significantly reduced the risk for all-cause dementia and cognitive impairment.
Similarly, a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial found that participants aged 50 or older who underwent intensive (< 120 mm Hg) vs standard (< 140 mm Hg) blood pressure lowering had a lower rate of probable dementia or mild cognitive impairment.
Other studies pointing to a benefit included a pooled individual participant analysis of five randomized controlled trials, which found class I evidence to support antihypertensive treatment to reduce the risk for incident dementia, and an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of blood pressure lowering with newly diagnosed dementia or cognitive impairment.
How It Might Work
Some possible mechanisms underlying the connection have emerged.
“Vascular disease caused by hypertension is clearly implicated in one form of dementia, called vascular cognitive impairment and dementia,” Andrew Moran, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, told this news organization. “This category includes dementia following a stroke caused by uncontrolled hypertension.”
“At the same time, we now know that hypertension and other vascular risk factors can also contribute, along with other factors, to developing Alzheimer dementia,” he said. “Even without causing clinically evident stroke, vascular disease from hypertension can lead to subtle damage to the brain via ischemia, microhemorrhage, and atrophy.”
“It is well known that hypertension affects the vasculature, and the vasculature of the brain is not spared,” agreed Eileen Handberg, PhD, ARNP, a member of the Hypertension Workgroup at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and a professor of medicine and director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Program in the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. “Combine this with other mechanisms like inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, and add amyloid accumulation, and there is a deterioration in vascular beds leading to decreased cerebral blood flow,” she said.
Treating hypertension likely helps lower dementia risk through “a combination of reduced risk of stroke and also benefits on blood flow, blood vessel health, and reduction in neurodegeneration,” suggested Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, chief clinical science officer and past president of the AHA and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. “Midlife blood pressure elevations are associated with deposition of amyloid in the brain, so controlling blood pressure may reduce amyloid deposits and neurodegeneration.”
Time in Range or Treat to Target?
With respect to dementia risk, does treating hypertension to a specific target make a difference, or is it the time spent in a healthy blood pressure range?
“Observational studies and a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial suggest that more time spent in a healthy blood pressure range or more stable blood pressure are associated with lower dementia risk,” Dr. Moran said. Citing results of the CHRC program and SPRINT MIND trial, he suggested that while a dose-response effect (the lower the blood pressure, the lower the dementia risk) hasn’t been definitively demonstrated, it is likely the case.
In his practice, Dr. Moran follows ACC/AHA guidelines and prescribes antihypertensives to get blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in individuals with hypertension who have other high-risk factors (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or high risk for these conditions). “The treatment rule for people with hypertension without these other risk factors is less clear — lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg is a must; I will discuss with patients whether to go lower than that.”
“The relative contributions of time in range versus treating to a target for blood pressure require further study,” said Dr. Elkind. “It is likely that the cumulative effect of blood pressure over time has a big role to play — and it does seem clear that midlife blood pressure is even more important than blood pressure late in life.”
That said, he added, “In general and all things being equal, I would treat to a blood pressure of < 120/80 mmHg,” given the SPRINT trial findings of greater benefits when treating to this systolic blood pressure goal. “Of course, if patients have side effects such as lightheadedness or dizziness or other medical conditions that require a higher target, then one would need to adjust the treatment targets.”
According to Dr. Fuster, targets should not be the focus because they vary. For example, the ACC/AHA guidelines use < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas the European Society of Hypertension guidelines and those of the American Academy of Family Physicians specify < 140/90 mm Hg and include age-based criteria. Because there are no studies comparing the outcomes of one set of guidelines vs another, Dr. Fuster thinks the focus should be on starting treatment as early as possible to prevent hypertension leading to dementia.
He pointed to the ongoing PESA trial, which uses brain MRI and other tests to characterize longitudinal associations among cerebral glucose metabolism, subclinical atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular risk factors in asymptomatic individuals aged 40-54. Most did not have hypertension at baseline.
A recently published analysis of a subcohort of 370 PESA participants found that those with persistent high cardiovascular risk and subclinical carotid atherosclerosis already had signs of brain metabolic decline, “suggesting that maintenance of cardiovascular health during midlife could contribute to reductions in neurodegenerative disease burden later in life,” wrote the investigators.
Is It Ever Too Late?
If starting hypertension treatment in midlife can help reduce the risk for cognitive impairment later, can treating later in life also help? “It’s theoretically possible, but it has to be proven,” Dr. Fuster said. “There are no data on whether there’s less chance to prevent the development of dementia if you start treating hypertension at age 70, for example. And we have no idea whether hypertension treatment will prevent progression in those who already have dementia.”
“Treating high blood pressure in older adults could affect the course of further progressive cognitive decline by improving vascular health and preventing strokes, which likely exacerbate nonvascular dementia,” Dr. Elkind suggested. “Most people with dementia have a combination of vascular and nonvascular dementia, so treating reversible causes wherever possible makes a difference.”
Dr. Elkind treats older patients with this in mind, he said, “even though most of the evidence points to the fact that it is blood pressure in middle age, not older age, that seems to have the biggest impact on later-life cognitive decline and dementia.” Like Dr. Fuster, he said, “the best strategy is to identify and treat blood pressure in midlife, before damage to the brain has advanced.”
Dr. Moran noted, “The latest science on dementia causes suggests it is difficult to draw a border between vascular and nonvascular dementia. So, as a practical matter, healthcare providers should consider that hypertension treatment is one of the best ways to prevent any category of dementia. This dementia prevention is added to the well-known benefits of hypertension treatment to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease: ‘Healthy heart, healthy brain.’ ”
“Our BP [blood pressure] control rates overall are still abysmal,” Dr. Handberg added. Currently around one in four US adults with hypertension have it under control. Studies have shown that blood pressure control rates of 70%-80% are achievable, she said. “We can’t let patient or provider inertia continue.”
Dr. Handberg, Dr. Elkind, Dr. Moran, and Dr. Fuster declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High blood pressure is an established risk factor for neurodegeneration and cognitive decline.
Valentin Fuster, MD, president of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City, told this news organization. “There is no question in the literature that untreated high blood pressure may lead to dementia,” he said. “The open question is whether treating blood pressure is sufficient to decrease or stop the progress of dementia.”
Studies are mixed, but recent research suggests that addressing hypertension does affect the risk for dementia. A secondary analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project reported at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions in 2023 but not yet published showed that the 4-year blood pressure–lowering program in adults aged 40 or older significantly reduced the risk for all-cause dementia and cognitive impairment.
Similarly, a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial found that participants aged 50 or older who underwent intensive (< 120 mm Hg) vs standard (< 140 mm Hg) blood pressure lowering had a lower rate of probable dementia or mild cognitive impairment.
Other studies pointing to a benefit included a pooled individual participant analysis of five randomized controlled trials, which found class I evidence to support antihypertensive treatment to reduce the risk for incident dementia, and an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of blood pressure lowering with newly diagnosed dementia or cognitive impairment.
How It Might Work
Some possible mechanisms underlying the connection have emerged.
“Vascular disease caused by hypertension is clearly implicated in one form of dementia, called vascular cognitive impairment and dementia,” Andrew Moran, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, told this news organization. “This category includes dementia following a stroke caused by uncontrolled hypertension.”
“At the same time, we now know that hypertension and other vascular risk factors can also contribute, along with other factors, to developing Alzheimer dementia,” he said. “Even without causing clinically evident stroke, vascular disease from hypertension can lead to subtle damage to the brain via ischemia, microhemorrhage, and atrophy.”
“It is well known that hypertension affects the vasculature, and the vasculature of the brain is not spared,” agreed Eileen Handberg, PhD, ARNP, a member of the Hypertension Workgroup at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and a professor of medicine and director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Program in the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. “Combine this with other mechanisms like inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, and add amyloid accumulation, and there is a deterioration in vascular beds leading to decreased cerebral blood flow,” she said.
Treating hypertension likely helps lower dementia risk through “a combination of reduced risk of stroke and also benefits on blood flow, blood vessel health, and reduction in neurodegeneration,” suggested Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, chief clinical science officer and past president of the AHA and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. “Midlife blood pressure elevations are associated with deposition of amyloid in the brain, so controlling blood pressure may reduce amyloid deposits and neurodegeneration.”
Time in Range or Treat to Target?
With respect to dementia risk, does treating hypertension to a specific target make a difference, or is it the time spent in a healthy blood pressure range?
“Observational studies and a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial suggest that more time spent in a healthy blood pressure range or more stable blood pressure are associated with lower dementia risk,” Dr. Moran said. Citing results of the CHRC program and SPRINT MIND trial, he suggested that while a dose-response effect (the lower the blood pressure, the lower the dementia risk) hasn’t been definitively demonstrated, it is likely the case.
In his practice, Dr. Moran follows ACC/AHA guidelines and prescribes antihypertensives to get blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in individuals with hypertension who have other high-risk factors (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or high risk for these conditions). “The treatment rule for people with hypertension without these other risk factors is less clear — lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg is a must; I will discuss with patients whether to go lower than that.”
“The relative contributions of time in range versus treating to a target for blood pressure require further study,” said Dr. Elkind. “It is likely that the cumulative effect of blood pressure over time has a big role to play — and it does seem clear that midlife blood pressure is even more important than blood pressure late in life.”
That said, he added, “In general and all things being equal, I would treat to a blood pressure of < 120/80 mmHg,” given the SPRINT trial findings of greater benefits when treating to this systolic blood pressure goal. “Of course, if patients have side effects such as lightheadedness or dizziness or other medical conditions that require a higher target, then one would need to adjust the treatment targets.”
According to Dr. Fuster, targets should not be the focus because they vary. For example, the ACC/AHA guidelines use < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas the European Society of Hypertension guidelines and those of the American Academy of Family Physicians specify < 140/90 mm Hg and include age-based criteria. Because there are no studies comparing the outcomes of one set of guidelines vs another, Dr. Fuster thinks the focus should be on starting treatment as early as possible to prevent hypertension leading to dementia.
He pointed to the ongoing PESA trial, which uses brain MRI and other tests to characterize longitudinal associations among cerebral glucose metabolism, subclinical atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular risk factors in asymptomatic individuals aged 40-54. Most did not have hypertension at baseline.
A recently published analysis of a subcohort of 370 PESA participants found that those with persistent high cardiovascular risk and subclinical carotid atherosclerosis already had signs of brain metabolic decline, “suggesting that maintenance of cardiovascular health during midlife could contribute to reductions in neurodegenerative disease burden later in life,” wrote the investigators.
Is It Ever Too Late?
If starting hypertension treatment in midlife can help reduce the risk for cognitive impairment later, can treating later in life also help? “It’s theoretically possible, but it has to be proven,” Dr. Fuster said. “There are no data on whether there’s less chance to prevent the development of dementia if you start treating hypertension at age 70, for example. And we have no idea whether hypertension treatment will prevent progression in those who already have dementia.”
“Treating high blood pressure in older adults could affect the course of further progressive cognitive decline by improving vascular health and preventing strokes, which likely exacerbate nonvascular dementia,” Dr. Elkind suggested. “Most people with dementia have a combination of vascular and nonvascular dementia, so treating reversible causes wherever possible makes a difference.”
Dr. Elkind treats older patients with this in mind, he said, “even though most of the evidence points to the fact that it is blood pressure in middle age, not older age, that seems to have the biggest impact on later-life cognitive decline and dementia.” Like Dr. Fuster, he said, “the best strategy is to identify and treat blood pressure in midlife, before damage to the brain has advanced.”
Dr. Moran noted, “The latest science on dementia causes suggests it is difficult to draw a border between vascular and nonvascular dementia. So, as a practical matter, healthcare providers should consider that hypertension treatment is one of the best ways to prevent any category of dementia. This dementia prevention is added to the well-known benefits of hypertension treatment to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease: ‘Healthy heart, healthy brain.’ ”
“Our BP [blood pressure] control rates overall are still abysmal,” Dr. Handberg added. Currently around one in four US adults with hypertension have it under control. Studies have shown that blood pressure control rates of 70%-80% are achievable, she said. “We can’t let patient or provider inertia continue.”
Dr. Handberg, Dr. Elkind, Dr. Moran, and Dr. Fuster declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High blood pressure is an established risk factor for neurodegeneration and cognitive decline.
Valentin Fuster, MD, president of Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City, told this news organization. “There is no question in the literature that untreated high blood pressure may lead to dementia,” he said. “The open question is whether treating blood pressure is sufficient to decrease or stop the progress of dementia.”
Studies are mixed, but recent research suggests that addressing hypertension does affect the risk for dementia. A secondary analysis of the China Rural Hypertension Control Project reported at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions in 2023 but not yet published showed that the 4-year blood pressure–lowering program in adults aged 40 or older significantly reduced the risk for all-cause dementia and cognitive impairment.
Similarly, a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial found that participants aged 50 or older who underwent intensive (< 120 mm Hg) vs standard (< 140 mm Hg) blood pressure lowering had a lower rate of probable dementia or mild cognitive impairment.
Other studies pointing to a benefit included a pooled individual participant analysis of five randomized controlled trials, which found class I evidence to support antihypertensive treatment to reduce the risk for incident dementia, and an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of blood pressure lowering with newly diagnosed dementia or cognitive impairment.
How It Might Work
Some possible mechanisms underlying the connection have emerged.
“Vascular disease caused by hypertension is clearly implicated in one form of dementia, called vascular cognitive impairment and dementia,” Andrew Moran, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, told this news organization. “This category includes dementia following a stroke caused by uncontrolled hypertension.”
“At the same time, we now know that hypertension and other vascular risk factors can also contribute, along with other factors, to developing Alzheimer dementia,” he said. “Even without causing clinically evident stroke, vascular disease from hypertension can lead to subtle damage to the brain via ischemia, microhemorrhage, and atrophy.”
“It is well known that hypertension affects the vasculature, and the vasculature of the brain is not spared,” agreed Eileen Handberg, PhD, ARNP, a member of the Hypertension Workgroup at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and a professor of medicine and director of the Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Program in the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. “Combine this with other mechanisms like inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, and add amyloid accumulation, and there is a deterioration in vascular beds leading to decreased cerebral blood flow,” she said.
Treating hypertension likely helps lower dementia risk through “a combination of reduced risk of stroke and also benefits on blood flow, blood vessel health, and reduction in neurodegeneration,” suggested Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, chief clinical science officer and past president of the AHA and a professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. “Midlife blood pressure elevations are associated with deposition of amyloid in the brain, so controlling blood pressure may reduce amyloid deposits and neurodegeneration.”
Time in Range or Treat to Target?
With respect to dementia risk, does treating hypertension to a specific target make a difference, or is it the time spent in a healthy blood pressure range?
“Observational studies and a post hoc analysis of the SPRINT MIND trial suggest that more time spent in a healthy blood pressure range or more stable blood pressure are associated with lower dementia risk,” Dr. Moran said. Citing results of the CHRC program and SPRINT MIND trial, he suggested that while a dose-response effect (the lower the blood pressure, the lower the dementia risk) hasn’t been definitively demonstrated, it is likely the case.
In his practice, Dr. Moran follows ACC/AHA guidelines and prescribes antihypertensives to get blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in individuals with hypertension who have other high-risk factors (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or high risk for these conditions). “The treatment rule for people with hypertension without these other risk factors is less clear — lowering blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg is a must; I will discuss with patients whether to go lower than that.”
“The relative contributions of time in range versus treating to a target for blood pressure require further study,” said Dr. Elkind. “It is likely that the cumulative effect of blood pressure over time has a big role to play — and it does seem clear that midlife blood pressure is even more important than blood pressure late in life.”
That said, he added, “In general and all things being equal, I would treat to a blood pressure of < 120/80 mmHg,” given the SPRINT trial findings of greater benefits when treating to this systolic blood pressure goal. “Of course, if patients have side effects such as lightheadedness or dizziness or other medical conditions that require a higher target, then one would need to adjust the treatment targets.”
According to Dr. Fuster, targets should not be the focus because they vary. For example, the ACC/AHA guidelines use < 130/80 mm Hg, whereas the European Society of Hypertension guidelines and those of the American Academy of Family Physicians specify < 140/90 mm Hg and include age-based criteria. Because there are no studies comparing the outcomes of one set of guidelines vs another, Dr. Fuster thinks the focus should be on starting treatment as early as possible to prevent hypertension leading to dementia.
He pointed to the ongoing PESA trial, which uses brain MRI and other tests to characterize longitudinal associations among cerebral glucose metabolism, subclinical atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular risk factors in asymptomatic individuals aged 40-54. Most did not have hypertension at baseline.
A recently published analysis of a subcohort of 370 PESA participants found that those with persistent high cardiovascular risk and subclinical carotid atherosclerosis already had signs of brain metabolic decline, “suggesting that maintenance of cardiovascular health during midlife could contribute to reductions in neurodegenerative disease burden later in life,” wrote the investigators.
Is It Ever Too Late?
If starting hypertension treatment in midlife can help reduce the risk for cognitive impairment later, can treating later in life also help? “It’s theoretically possible, but it has to be proven,” Dr. Fuster said. “There are no data on whether there’s less chance to prevent the development of dementia if you start treating hypertension at age 70, for example. And we have no idea whether hypertension treatment will prevent progression in those who already have dementia.”
“Treating high blood pressure in older adults could affect the course of further progressive cognitive decline by improving vascular health and preventing strokes, which likely exacerbate nonvascular dementia,” Dr. Elkind suggested. “Most people with dementia have a combination of vascular and nonvascular dementia, so treating reversible causes wherever possible makes a difference.”
Dr. Elkind treats older patients with this in mind, he said, “even though most of the evidence points to the fact that it is blood pressure in middle age, not older age, that seems to have the biggest impact on later-life cognitive decline and dementia.” Like Dr. Fuster, he said, “the best strategy is to identify and treat blood pressure in midlife, before damage to the brain has advanced.”
Dr. Moran noted, “The latest science on dementia causes suggests it is difficult to draw a border between vascular and nonvascular dementia. So, as a practical matter, healthcare providers should consider that hypertension treatment is one of the best ways to prevent any category of dementia. This dementia prevention is added to the well-known benefits of hypertension treatment to prevent heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease: ‘Healthy heart, healthy brain.’ ”
“Our BP [blood pressure] control rates overall are still abysmal,” Dr. Handberg added. Currently around one in four US adults with hypertension have it under control. Studies have shown that blood pressure control rates of 70%-80% are achievable, she said. “We can’t let patient or provider inertia continue.”
Dr. Handberg, Dr. Elkind, Dr. Moran, and Dr. Fuster declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How Drones Are Reducing Emergency Response Times
The drones are coming.
Starting in September, if someone in Clemmons, North Carolina, calls 911 to report a cardiac arrest, the first responder on the scene may be a drone carrying an automated external defibrillator, or AED.
“The idea is for the drone to get there several minutes before first responders,” such as an emergency medical technician or an ambulance, said Daniel Crews, a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office in Forsyth County, where Clemmons is located. The sheriff’s office is partnering on the project with local emergency services, the Clinical Research Institute at Duke University, and the drone consulting firm Hovecon. “The ultimate goal is to save lives and improve life expectancy for someone experiencing a cardiac episode,” Mr. Crews said.
The Forsyth County program is one of a growing number of efforts by public safety and healthcare organizations across the country to use drones to speed up lifesaving treatment in situations in which every second counts.
More than 356,000 people have a cardiac arrest outside of a hospital setting every year in the United States, according to the American Heart Association. Most people are at home when it happens, and about 90% die because they don’t get immediate help from first responders or bystanders. Every minute that passes without medical intervention decreases the odds of survival by 10%.
“We’ve never been able to move the needle for cardiac arrest in private settings, and this technology could meet that need,” said Monique Anderson Starks, MD, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University. Dr. Starks is leading pilot studies in Forsyth County and James City County, Virginia, to test whether drone AED delivery can improve treatment response times. The work is funded by a 4-year grant from the American Heart Association.
Dr. Starks said she believes the drone-delivered AEDs in the pilot study could reduce the time to treatment by 4 minutes compared with first responders.
Unlike a heart attack, which occurs when blood flow to the heart is blocked, a cardiac arrest happens when a heart malfunction causes it to stop beating, typically because of an arrhythmia or an electrical problem. Eighty percent of cardiac arrests start as heart attacks. The only way to get the heart restarted is with CPR and a defibrillator.
In Forsyth County, a drone pilot from the sheriff’s department will listen in on 911 calls. If there’s a suspected cardiac arrest, the pilot can dispatch the drone even before emergency medical services are contacted. The drone, which weighs 22 pounds and can travel 60 mph, will fly to the location and hover 125 feet in the air before lowering an AED to the ground on a winch. The AED provides simple verbal instructions; the 911 dispatcher on the phone can also help a bystander use the AED.
Eventually there will be six drone bases in Forsyth and James City counties, Dr. Starks said.
While the technology is promising and research has often found that drones arrive faster than first responders, there’s little conclusive evidence that drones improve health outcomes.
A Swedish study published in The Lancet in 2023 compared the response times between drones and ambulances for suspected cardiac arrest in 58 deployments in an area of about 200,000 people. It found that drones beat the ambulance to the scene two thirds of the time, by a median of 3 minutes and 14 seconds.
In the United States, most programs are just getting started, and they are exploring the use of drones to also provide remedies for drug overdoses and major trauma or potential drowning rescues.
In Florida, Tampa General Hospital, Manatee County, and Archer First Response Systems, or AFRS, began a program in May to deliver AEDs, a tourniquet, and Narcan, a nasal spray that can reverse an opioid overdose. The program initially covers a 7-square-mile area, and EMS dispatchers deploy the drones, which are monitored by drone pilots.
There were nearly 108,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in 2022, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
As of early July, the Tampa program hadn’t yet deployed any drones, said Gordon Folkes, the founder and chief executive of AFRS, which develops and deploys emergency drone logistics systems. One request in June to send a drone to an overdose couldn’t be fulfilled because of a violent thunderstorm, Mr. Folkes said. In the testing area, which covers about 7,000 residents, Mr. Folkes estimates that 10-15 drones might be deployed each year.
“The bread and butter for these systems is suburban areas” like Manatee County that are well-populated and where the drones have the advantage of being able to avoid traffic congestion, Mr. Folkes said.
There are other uses for drones in medical emergencies. The New York Police Department plans to drop emergency flotation devices to struggling swimmers at local beaches. In Chula Vista, California, a police drone was able to pinpoint the location of a burning car, and then officers pulled the driver out, said Sgt. Tony Molina.
Rescue personnel have used drones to locate people who wander away from nursing homes, said James Augustine, a spokesperson for the American College of Emergency Physicians who is the medical director for the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
In the United States, one hurdle for drone programs is that the Federal Aviation Administration typically requires that drones be operated within the operators’ visual line of sight. In May, when Congress passed the FAA reauthorization bill, it gave the FAA 4 months to issue a notice of proposed rule-making on drone operations beyond the visual line of sight.
“The FAA is focused on developing standard rules to make [Beyond Visual Line of Sight] operations routine, scalable, and economically viable,” said Rick Breitenfeldt, an FAA spokesperson.
Some civil liberties groups are concerned that the FAA’s new rules may not provide enough protection from drone cameras for people on the ground.
Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, acknowledged the benefits of using drones in emergency situations but said there are issues that need to be addressed.
“The concern is that the FAA is going to significantly loosen the reins of drones without any significant privacy protections,” he said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
The drones are coming.
Starting in September, if someone in Clemmons, North Carolina, calls 911 to report a cardiac arrest, the first responder on the scene may be a drone carrying an automated external defibrillator, or AED.
“The idea is for the drone to get there several minutes before first responders,” such as an emergency medical technician or an ambulance, said Daniel Crews, a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office in Forsyth County, where Clemmons is located. The sheriff’s office is partnering on the project with local emergency services, the Clinical Research Institute at Duke University, and the drone consulting firm Hovecon. “The ultimate goal is to save lives and improve life expectancy for someone experiencing a cardiac episode,” Mr. Crews said.
The Forsyth County program is one of a growing number of efforts by public safety and healthcare organizations across the country to use drones to speed up lifesaving treatment in situations in which every second counts.
More than 356,000 people have a cardiac arrest outside of a hospital setting every year in the United States, according to the American Heart Association. Most people are at home when it happens, and about 90% die because they don’t get immediate help from first responders or bystanders. Every minute that passes without medical intervention decreases the odds of survival by 10%.
“We’ve never been able to move the needle for cardiac arrest in private settings, and this technology could meet that need,” said Monique Anderson Starks, MD, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University. Dr. Starks is leading pilot studies in Forsyth County and James City County, Virginia, to test whether drone AED delivery can improve treatment response times. The work is funded by a 4-year grant from the American Heart Association.
Dr. Starks said she believes the drone-delivered AEDs in the pilot study could reduce the time to treatment by 4 minutes compared with first responders.
Unlike a heart attack, which occurs when blood flow to the heart is blocked, a cardiac arrest happens when a heart malfunction causes it to stop beating, typically because of an arrhythmia or an electrical problem. Eighty percent of cardiac arrests start as heart attacks. The only way to get the heart restarted is with CPR and a defibrillator.
In Forsyth County, a drone pilot from the sheriff’s department will listen in on 911 calls. If there’s a suspected cardiac arrest, the pilot can dispatch the drone even before emergency medical services are contacted. The drone, which weighs 22 pounds and can travel 60 mph, will fly to the location and hover 125 feet in the air before lowering an AED to the ground on a winch. The AED provides simple verbal instructions; the 911 dispatcher on the phone can also help a bystander use the AED.
Eventually there will be six drone bases in Forsyth and James City counties, Dr. Starks said.
While the technology is promising and research has often found that drones arrive faster than first responders, there’s little conclusive evidence that drones improve health outcomes.
A Swedish study published in The Lancet in 2023 compared the response times between drones and ambulances for suspected cardiac arrest in 58 deployments in an area of about 200,000 people. It found that drones beat the ambulance to the scene two thirds of the time, by a median of 3 minutes and 14 seconds.
In the United States, most programs are just getting started, and they are exploring the use of drones to also provide remedies for drug overdoses and major trauma or potential drowning rescues.
In Florida, Tampa General Hospital, Manatee County, and Archer First Response Systems, or AFRS, began a program in May to deliver AEDs, a tourniquet, and Narcan, a nasal spray that can reverse an opioid overdose. The program initially covers a 7-square-mile area, and EMS dispatchers deploy the drones, which are monitored by drone pilots.
There were nearly 108,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in 2022, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
As of early July, the Tampa program hadn’t yet deployed any drones, said Gordon Folkes, the founder and chief executive of AFRS, which develops and deploys emergency drone logistics systems. One request in June to send a drone to an overdose couldn’t be fulfilled because of a violent thunderstorm, Mr. Folkes said. In the testing area, which covers about 7,000 residents, Mr. Folkes estimates that 10-15 drones might be deployed each year.
“The bread and butter for these systems is suburban areas” like Manatee County that are well-populated and where the drones have the advantage of being able to avoid traffic congestion, Mr. Folkes said.
There are other uses for drones in medical emergencies. The New York Police Department plans to drop emergency flotation devices to struggling swimmers at local beaches. In Chula Vista, California, a police drone was able to pinpoint the location of a burning car, and then officers pulled the driver out, said Sgt. Tony Molina.
Rescue personnel have used drones to locate people who wander away from nursing homes, said James Augustine, a spokesperson for the American College of Emergency Physicians who is the medical director for the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
In the United States, one hurdle for drone programs is that the Federal Aviation Administration typically requires that drones be operated within the operators’ visual line of sight. In May, when Congress passed the FAA reauthorization bill, it gave the FAA 4 months to issue a notice of proposed rule-making on drone operations beyond the visual line of sight.
“The FAA is focused on developing standard rules to make [Beyond Visual Line of Sight] operations routine, scalable, and economically viable,” said Rick Breitenfeldt, an FAA spokesperson.
Some civil liberties groups are concerned that the FAA’s new rules may not provide enough protection from drone cameras for people on the ground.
Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, acknowledged the benefits of using drones in emergency situations but said there are issues that need to be addressed.
“The concern is that the FAA is going to significantly loosen the reins of drones without any significant privacy protections,” he said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
The drones are coming.
Starting in September, if someone in Clemmons, North Carolina, calls 911 to report a cardiac arrest, the first responder on the scene may be a drone carrying an automated external defibrillator, or AED.
“The idea is for the drone to get there several minutes before first responders,” such as an emergency medical technician or an ambulance, said Daniel Crews, a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office in Forsyth County, where Clemmons is located. The sheriff’s office is partnering on the project with local emergency services, the Clinical Research Institute at Duke University, and the drone consulting firm Hovecon. “The ultimate goal is to save lives and improve life expectancy for someone experiencing a cardiac episode,” Mr. Crews said.
The Forsyth County program is one of a growing number of efforts by public safety and healthcare organizations across the country to use drones to speed up lifesaving treatment in situations in which every second counts.
More than 356,000 people have a cardiac arrest outside of a hospital setting every year in the United States, according to the American Heart Association. Most people are at home when it happens, and about 90% die because they don’t get immediate help from first responders or bystanders. Every minute that passes without medical intervention decreases the odds of survival by 10%.
“We’ve never been able to move the needle for cardiac arrest in private settings, and this technology could meet that need,” said Monique Anderson Starks, MD, a cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Duke University. Dr. Starks is leading pilot studies in Forsyth County and James City County, Virginia, to test whether drone AED delivery can improve treatment response times. The work is funded by a 4-year grant from the American Heart Association.
Dr. Starks said she believes the drone-delivered AEDs in the pilot study could reduce the time to treatment by 4 minutes compared with first responders.
Unlike a heart attack, which occurs when blood flow to the heart is blocked, a cardiac arrest happens when a heart malfunction causes it to stop beating, typically because of an arrhythmia or an electrical problem. Eighty percent of cardiac arrests start as heart attacks. The only way to get the heart restarted is with CPR and a defibrillator.
In Forsyth County, a drone pilot from the sheriff’s department will listen in on 911 calls. If there’s a suspected cardiac arrest, the pilot can dispatch the drone even before emergency medical services are contacted. The drone, which weighs 22 pounds and can travel 60 mph, will fly to the location and hover 125 feet in the air before lowering an AED to the ground on a winch. The AED provides simple verbal instructions; the 911 dispatcher on the phone can also help a bystander use the AED.
Eventually there will be six drone bases in Forsyth and James City counties, Dr. Starks said.
While the technology is promising and research has often found that drones arrive faster than first responders, there’s little conclusive evidence that drones improve health outcomes.
A Swedish study published in The Lancet in 2023 compared the response times between drones and ambulances for suspected cardiac arrest in 58 deployments in an area of about 200,000 people. It found that drones beat the ambulance to the scene two thirds of the time, by a median of 3 minutes and 14 seconds.
In the United States, most programs are just getting started, and they are exploring the use of drones to also provide remedies for drug overdoses and major trauma or potential drowning rescues.
In Florida, Tampa General Hospital, Manatee County, and Archer First Response Systems, or AFRS, began a program in May to deliver AEDs, a tourniquet, and Narcan, a nasal spray that can reverse an opioid overdose. The program initially covers a 7-square-mile area, and EMS dispatchers deploy the drones, which are monitored by drone pilots.
There were nearly 108,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in 2022, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
As of early July, the Tampa program hadn’t yet deployed any drones, said Gordon Folkes, the founder and chief executive of AFRS, which develops and deploys emergency drone logistics systems. One request in June to send a drone to an overdose couldn’t be fulfilled because of a violent thunderstorm, Mr. Folkes said. In the testing area, which covers about 7,000 residents, Mr. Folkes estimates that 10-15 drones might be deployed each year.
“The bread and butter for these systems is suburban areas” like Manatee County that are well-populated and where the drones have the advantage of being able to avoid traffic congestion, Mr. Folkes said.
There are other uses for drones in medical emergencies. The New York Police Department plans to drop emergency flotation devices to struggling swimmers at local beaches. In Chula Vista, California, a police drone was able to pinpoint the location of a burning car, and then officers pulled the driver out, said Sgt. Tony Molina.
Rescue personnel have used drones to locate people who wander away from nursing homes, said James Augustine, a spokesperson for the American College of Emergency Physicians who is the medical director for the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
In the United States, one hurdle for drone programs is that the Federal Aviation Administration typically requires that drones be operated within the operators’ visual line of sight. In May, when Congress passed the FAA reauthorization bill, it gave the FAA 4 months to issue a notice of proposed rule-making on drone operations beyond the visual line of sight.
“The FAA is focused on developing standard rules to make [Beyond Visual Line of Sight] operations routine, scalable, and economically viable,” said Rick Breitenfeldt, an FAA spokesperson.
Some civil liberties groups are concerned that the FAA’s new rules may not provide enough protection from drone cameras for people on the ground.
Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, acknowledged the benefits of using drones in emergency situations but said there are issues that need to be addressed.
“The concern is that the FAA is going to significantly loosen the reins of drones without any significant privacy protections,” he said.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
Are Beta-Blockers Safe for COPD?
Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.
Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.
Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.
This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.
The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.
That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.
Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.
Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.
This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.
The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.
That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Everyone takes a pharmacology class in medical school that includes a lecture on beta receptors. They’re in the heart (beta-1) and lungs (beta-2), and drug compounds agonize or antagonize one or both. The professor will caution against using antagonists (beta blockade) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) lest they further impair the patient’s irreversibly narrowed airways. Obsequious students mature into obsequious doctors, intent on “doing no harm.” For better or worse, you withhold beta-blockers from your patient with COPD and comorbid cardiac disease.
Perhaps because the pulmonologist isn’t usually the one who decides whether a beta-blocker is prescribed, I’ve been napping on this topic since training. Early in fellowship, I read an ACP Journal Club article about a Cochrane systematic review (yes, I read a review of a review) that concluded that beta-blockers are fine in patients with COPD. The summary appealed to my bias towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) supplanting physiology, medical school, and everything else. I was more apt to believe my stodgy residency attendings than the stodgy pharmacology professor. Even though COPD and cardiovascular disease share multiple risk factors, I had never reinvestigated the relationship between beta-blockers and COPD.
Turns out that while I was sleeping, the debate continued. Go figure. Just last month a prospective, observational study published in JAMA Network Open found that beta-blockers did not increase the risk for cardiovascular or respiratory events among patients with COPD being discharged after hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. Although this could be viewed as a triumph for EBM over physiology and a validation of my decade-plus of intellectual laziness, the results are actually pretty thin. These studies, in which patients with an indication for a therapy (a beta-blocker in this case) are analyzed by whether or not they received it, are problematic. The fanciest statistics — in this case, they used propensity scores — can’t control for residual confounding. What drove the physicians to prescribe in some cases but not others? We can only guess.
This might be okay if there hadn’t been a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published in 2019 in The New England Journal of Medicine that found that beta-blockers increase the risk for severe COPD exacerbations. In EBM, the RCT trumps all. Ironically, this trial was designed to test whether beta-blockers reduce severe COPD exacerbations. Yes, we’d come full circle. There was enough biologic plausibility to support a positive effect, or so thought the study authors and the Department of Defense (DOD) — for reasons I can’t possibly guess, the DOD funded this RCT. My pharmacology professor must be rolling over in his tenure.
The RCT did leave beta-blockers some wiggle room. The authors purposely excluded anyone with a cardiovascular indication for a beta-blocker. The intent was to ensure beneficial effects were isolated to respiratory and not cardiovascular outcomes. Of course, the reason I’m writing and you’re reading this is that COPD and cardiovascular disease co-occur at a high rate. The RCT notwithstanding, we prescribe beta-blockers to patients with COPD because they have a cardiac indication, not to reduce acute COPD exacerbations. So, it’s possible there’d be a net beta-blocker benefit in patients with COPD and comorbid heart disease.
That’s where the JAMA Network Open study comes in, but as discussed, methodologic weaknesses preclude its being the final word. That said, I think it’s unlikely we’ll see a COPD with comorbid cardiac disease RCT performed to assess whether beta-blockers provide a net benefit, unless maybe the DOD wants to fund another one of these. In the meantime, I’m calling clinical equipoise and punting. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to prescribe beta-blockers.
Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Avoid These Common Mistakes in Treating Hyperkalemia
Hyperkalemia tends to cause panic in healthcare professionals, and rightfully so. On a good day, it causes weakness in the legs; on a bad day, it causes cardiac arrest.
It makes sense that a high potassium level causes clinicians to feel a bit jumpy. This anxiety tends to result in treating the issue by overly restricting potassium in the diet. The problem with this method is that it should be temporary but often isn’t. There are only a few concerns that justify long-term potassium restriction.
As a dietitian, I have seen numerous patients with varying disease states who are terrified of potassium because they were never properly educated on the situation that required restriction or were never notified that their potassium was corrected.
I’ve seen patients whose potassium level hasn’t been elevated in years refuse banana bread because they were told that they could never eat a banana again. I’ve worked with patients who continued to needlessly restrict, which eventually led to hypokalemia.
Not only does this indicate ineffective education — banana bread is actually a low-potassium food at about 80 mg per slice — but also poor follow-up.
Potassium has been designated by the United States Department of Agriculture as a nutrient of public health concern due to its underconsumption in the general population. Although there is concern in the public health community that the current guidelines for potassium intake (3500-4700 mg/d) are unattainable, with some professionals arguing for lowering the standard, there remains significant deficiency in the general population. This deficiency has also been connected to increasing rates of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
Nondietary Causes of Hyperkalemia
There are many causes of hyperkalemia, of which excessive potassium intake is only one, and an uncommon one at that. A high potassium level should resolve during the course of treatment for metabolic acidosis, hyperglycemia, and dehydration. We may also see resolution with medication changes. But the question remains: Are we relaying this information to patients?
Renal insufficiency is a common cause of hyperkalemia, but it is also a common cause of chronic constipation that can cause hyperkalemia as well. Are we addressing bowel movements with these patients? I often work with patients who aren’t having their bowel movements addressed until the patient themselves voices discomfort.
Depending upon the urgency of treatment, potassium restriction may be the most effective and efficient way to address an acutely elevated value. However, long-term potassium restriction may not be an appropriate intervention for all patients, even those with kidney conditions.
As a dietitian, I have seen many patients who overly restrict dietary potassium because they had one elevated value. These patients tend to view potassium as the enemy because they were never educated on the actual cause of their hyperkalemia. They were simply given a list of high-potassium foods and told to avoid them. A lack of follow-up education may cause them to avoid those foods forever.
Benefits of Potassium
The problem with this perpetual avoidance of high potassium foods is that a potassium-rich diet has been shown to be exceptionally beneficial.
Potassium exists in many forms in the Western diet: as a preservative and additive, a salt substitute, and naturally occurring in both animal and plant products. My concern regarding blanket potassium restriction is that potassium-rich plant and animal products can actually be beneficial, even to those with kidney and heart conditions who are most often advised to restrict its intake.
Adequate potassium intake can:
- Decrease blood pressure by increasing urinary excretion of sodium
- Improve nephrolithiasis by decreasing urinary excretion of calcium
- Decrease incidence of metabolic acidosis by providing precursors to bicarbonate that facilitate excretion of potassium
- Increase bone density in postmenopausal women
- Decrease risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease in the general population
One study found that metabolic acidosis can be corrected in patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, without hyperkalemia, by increasing fruit and vegetable intake when compared with those treated with bicarbonate alone, thus preserving kidney function.
Do I suggest encouraging a patient with acute hyperkalemia to eat a banana? Of course not. But I would suggest finding ways to work with patients who have chronic hyperkalemia to increase intake of potassium-rich plant foods to maintain homeostasis while liberalizing diet and preventing progression of chronic kidney disease.
When to Refer to a Dietitian
In patients for whom a potassium-restricted diet is a necessary long-term treatment of hyperkalemia, education with a registered dietitian can be beneficial. A registered dietitian has the time and expertise to address the areas in the diet where excessive potassium exists without forfeiting other nutritional benefits that come from whole foods like fruits, vegetables, lean protein, legumes, nuts, and seeds in a way that is both realistic and helpful. A dietitian can work with patients to reduce intake of potassium-containing salt substitutes, preservatives, and other additives while still encouraging a whole-food diet rich in antioxidants, fiber, and healthy fats.
Dietitians also provide education on serving size and methods to reduce potassium content of food.
For example, tomatoes are a high-potassium food at 300+ mg per medium-sized tomato. But how often does a patient eat a whole tomato? A slice of tomato on a sandwich or a handful of cherry tomatoes in a salad are actually low in potassium per serving and can provide additional nutrients like vitamin C, beta-carotene, and antioxidants like lycopene, which is linked to a decreased incidence of prostate cancer.
By incorporating the assistance of a registered dietitian into the treatment of chronic hyperkalemia, we can develop individualized restrictions that are realistic for the patient and tailored to their nutritional needs to promote optimal health and thus encourage continued compliance.
Ms. Winfree is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hyperkalemia tends to cause panic in healthcare professionals, and rightfully so. On a good day, it causes weakness in the legs; on a bad day, it causes cardiac arrest.
It makes sense that a high potassium level causes clinicians to feel a bit jumpy. This anxiety tends to result in treating the issue by overly restricting potassium in the diet. The problem with this method is that it should be temporary but often isn’t. There are only a few concerns that justify long-term potassium restriction.
As a dietitian, I have seen numerous patients with varying disease states who are terrified of potassium because they were never properly educated on the situation that required restriction or were never notified that their potassium was corrected.
I’ve seen patients whose potassium level hasn’t been elevated in years refuse banana bread because they were told that they could never eat a banana again. I’ve worked with patients who continued to needlessly restrict, which eventually led to hypokalemia.
Not only does this indicate ineffective education — banana bread is actually a low-potassium food at about 80 mg per slice — but also poor follow-up.
Potassium has been designated by the United States Department of Agriculture as a nutrient of public health concern due to its underconsumption in the general population. Although there is concern in the public health community that the current guidelines for potassium intake (3500-4700 mg/d) are unattainable, with some professionals arguing for lowering the standard, there remains significant deficiency in the general population. This deficiency has also been connected to increasing rates of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
Nondietary Causes of Hyperkalemia
There are many causes of hyperkalemia, of which excessive potassium intake is only one, and an uncommon one at that. A high potassium level should resolve during the course of treatment for metabolic acidosis, hyperglycemia, and dehydration. We may also see resolution with medication changes. But the question remains: Are we relaying this information to patients?
Renal insufficiency is a common cause of hyperkalemia, but it is also a common cause of chronic constipation that can cause hyperkalemia as well. Are we addressing bowel movements with these patients? I often work with patients who aren’t having their bowel movements addressed until the patient themselves voices discomfort.
Depending upon the urgency of treatment, potassium restriction may be the most effective and efficient way to address an acutely elevated value. However, long-term potassium restriction may not be an appropriate intervention for all patients, even those with kidney conditions.
As a dietitian, I have seen many patients who overly restrict dietary potassium because they had one elevated value. These patients tend to view potassium as the enemy because they were never educated on the actual cause of their hyperkalemia. They were simply given a list of high-potassium foods and told to avoid them. A lack of follow-up education may cause them to avoid those foods forever.
Benefits of Potassium
The problem with this perpetual avoidance of high potassium foods is that a potassium-rich diet has been shown to be exceptionally beneficial.
Potassium exists in many forms in the Western diet: as a preservative and additive, a salt substitute, and naturally occurring in both animal and plant products. My concern regarding blanket potassium restriction is that potassium-rich plant and animal products can actually be beneficial, even to those with kidney and heart conditions who are most often advised to restrict its intake.
Adequate potassium intake can:
- Decrease blood pressure by increasing urinary excretion of sodium
- Improve nephrolithiasis by decreasing urinary excretion of calcium
- Decrease incidence of metabolic acidosis by providing precursors to bicarbonate that facilitate excretion of potassium
- Increase bone density in postmenopausal women
- Decrease risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease in the general population
One study found that metabolic acidosis can be corrected in patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, without hyperkalemia, by increasing fruit and vegetable intake when compared with those treated with bicarbonate alone, thus preserving kidney function.
Do I suggest encouraging a patient with acute hyperkalemia to eat a banana? Of course not. But I would suggest finding ways to work with patients who have chronic hyperkalemia to increase intake of potassium-rich plant foods to maintain homeostasis while liberalizing diet and preventing progression of chronic kidney disease.
When to Refer to a Dietitian
In patients for whom a potassium-restricted diet is a necessary long-term treatment of hyperkalemia, education with a registered dietitian can be beneficial. A registered dietitian has the time and expertise to address the areas in the diet where excessive potassium exists without forfeiting other nutritional benefits that come from whole foods like fruits, vegetables, lean protein, legumes, nuts, and seeds in a way that is both realistic and helpful. A dietitian can work with patients to reduce intake of potassium-containing salt substitutes, preservatives, and other additives while still encouraging a whole-food diet rich in antioxidants, fiber, and healthy fats.
Dietitians also provide education on serving size and methods to reduce potassium content of food.
For example, tomatoes are a high-potassium food at 300+ mg per medium-sized tomato. But how often does a patient eat a whole tomato? A slice of tomato on a sandwich or a handful of cherry tomatoes in a salad are actually low in potassium per serving and can provide additional nutrients like vitamin C, beta-carotene, and antioxidants like lycopene, which is linked to a decreased incidence of prostate cancer.
By incorporating the assistance of a registered dietitian into the treatment of chronic hyperkalemia, we can develop individualized restrictions that are realistic for the patient and tailored to their nutritional needs to promote optimal health and thus encourage continued compliance.
Ms. Winfree is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Hyperkalemia tends to cause panic in healthcare professionals, and rightfully so. On a good day, it causes weakness in the legs; on a bad day, it causes cardiac arrest.
It makes sense that a high potassium level causes clinicians to feel a bit jumpy. This anxiety tends to result in treating the issue by overly restricting potassium in the diet. The problem with this method is that it should be temporary but often isn’t. There are only a few concerns that justify long-term potassium restriction.
As a dietitian, I have seen numerous patients with varying disease states who are terrified of potassium because they were never properly educated on the situation that required restriction or were never notified that their potassium was corrected.
I’ve seen patients whose potassium level hasn’t been elevated in years refuse banana bread because they were told that they could never eat a banana again. I’ve worked with patients who continued to needlessly restrict, which eventually led to hypokalemia.
Not only does this indicate ineffective education — banana bread is actually a low-potassium food at about 80 mg per slice — but also poor follow-up.
Potassium has been designated by the United States Department of Agriculture as a nutrient of public health concern due to its underconsumption in the general population. Although there is concern in the public health community that the current guidelines for potassium intake (3500-4700 mg/d) are unattainable, with some professionals arguing for lowering the standard, there remains significant deficiency in the general population. This deficiency has also been connected to increasing rates of hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
Nondietary Causes of Hyperkalemia
There are many causes of hyperkalemia, of which excessive potassium intake is only one, and an uncommon one at that. A high potassium level should resolve during the course of treatment for metabolic acidosis, hyperglycemia, and dehydration. We may also see resolution with medication changes. But the question remains: Are we relaying this information to patients?
Renal insufficiency is a common cause of hyperkalemia, but it is also a common cause of chronic constipation that can cause hyperkalemia as well. Are we addressing bowel movements with these patients? I often work with patients who aren’t having their bowel movements addressed until the patient themselves voices discomfort.
Depending upon the urgency of treatment, potassium restriction may be the most effective and efficient way to address an acutely elevated value. However, long-term potassium restriction may not be an appropriate intervention for all patients, even those with kidney conditions.
As a dietitian, I have seen many patients who overly restrict dietary potassium because they had one elevated value. These patients tend to view potassium as the enemy because they were never educated on the actual cause of their hyperkalemia. They were simply given a list of high-potassium foods and told to avoid them. A lack of follow-up education may cause them to avoid those foods forever.
Benefits of Potassium
The problem with this perpetual avoidance of high potassium foods is that a potassium-rich diet has been shown to be exceptionally beneficial.
Potassium exists in many forms in the Western diet: as a preservative and additive, a salt substitute, and naturally occurring in both animal and plant products. My concern regarding blanket potassium restriction is that potassium-rich plant and animal products can actually be beneficial, even to those with kidney and heart conditions who are most often advised to restrict its intake.
Adequate potassium intake can:
- Decrease blood pressure by increasing urinary excretion of sodium
- Improve nephrolithiasis by decreasing urinary excretion of calcium
- Decrease incidence of metabolic acidosis by providing precursors to bicarbonate that facilitate excretion of potassium
- Increase bone density in postmenopausal women
- Decrease risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease in the general population
One study found that metabolic acidosis can be corrected in patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, without hyperkalemia, by increasing fruit and vegetable intake when compared with those treated with bicarbonate alone, thus preserving kidney function.
Do I suggest encouraging a patient with acute hyperkalemia to eat a banana? Of course not. But I would suggest finding ways to work with patients who have chronic hyperkalemia to increase intake of potassium-rich plant foods to maintain homeostasis while liberalizing diet and preventing progression of chronic kidney disease.
When to Refer to a Dietitian
In patients for whom a potassium-restricted diet is a necessary long-term treatment of hyperkalemia, education with a registered dietitian can be beneficial. A registered dietitian has the time and expertise to address the areas in the diet where excessive potassium exists without forfeiting other nutritional benefits that come from whole foods like fruits, vegetables, lean protein, legumes, nuts, and seeds in a way that is both realistic and helpful. A dietitian can work with patients to reduce intake of potassium-containing salt substitutes, preservatives, and other additives while still encouraging a whole-food diet rich in antioxidants, fiber, and healthy fats.
Dietitians also provide education on serving size and methods to reduce potassium content of food.
For example, tomatoes are a high-potassium food at 300+ mg per medium-sized tomato. But how often does a patient eat a whole tomato? A slice of tomato on a sandwich or a handful of cherry tomatoes in a salad are actually low in potassium per serving and can provide additional nutrients like vitamin C, beta-carotene, and antioxidants like lycopene, which is linked to a decreased incidence of prostate cancer.
By incorporating the assistance of a registered dietitian into the treatment of chronic hyperkalemia, we can develop individualized restrictions that are realistic for the patient and tailored to their nutritional needs to promote optimal health and thus encourage continued compliance.
Ms. Winfree is a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vitamin B1 May Reduce Constipation in Adults
TOPLINE:
Increased dietary intake of vitamin B1 is associated with a lower prevalence of constipation, particularly among men and individuals without hypertension or diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2005-2010 involving 10,371 adults aged ≥ 20 years.
- Participants provided information on fecal characteristics and bowel movement frequency, which was documented for 30 days prior to data collection.
- Constipation was established by either frequency of bowel movements (fewer than three per week) or stool consistency (Bristol Stool Scale type 1 or 2).
- Data on vitamin B1 intake were collected through 24-hour total nutritional intake recall interviews. Patients were divided into three groups based on their level of B1 intake: 0.064-1.21 mg, 1.21-1.76 mg, and 1.76-12.61 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 10.8% of participants were identified as having constipation.
- Greater dietary vitamin B1 intake was associated with a 23% reduction in constipation risk (P = .034).
- Additionally, a subgroup analysis found that higher B1 intake was associated with a reduction in constipation risk of 20% in men, 16% in people without hypertension, and 14% in those without diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“This association suggests that enhanced intake of vitamin B1 through diet may facilitate softer stools and heightened intestinal motility, thereby potentially alleviating constipation symptoms. Consequently, healthcare professionals are advised to prioritize the promotion of a well-balanced diet as an initial therapeutic approach, preceding medical interventions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wenyi Du, the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Stomatological Hospital, Suzhou, China, and Wuxi People’s Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi Medical Center, Wuxi, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
A causal relationship could not be established between vitamin B1 intake and constipation owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. The study relied on patient interviews and patient self-reported data. Additionally, 24-hour dietary recalls may not have accurately reflected the long-term eating habits of the participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Increased dietary intake of vitamin B1 is associated with a lower prevalence of constipation, particularly among men and individuals without hypertension or diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2005-2010 involving 10,371 adults aged ≥ 20 years.
- Participants provided information on fecal characteristics and bowel movement frequency, which was documented for 30 days prior to data collection.
- Constipation was established by either frequency of bowel movements (fewer than three per week) or stool consistency (Bristol Stool Scale type 1 or 2).
- Data on vitamin B1 intake were collected through 24-hour total nutritional intake recall interviews. Patients were divided into three groups based on their level of B1 intake: 0.064-1.21 mg, 1.21-1.76 mg, and 1.76-12.61 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 10.8% of participants were identified as having constipation.
- Greater dietary vitamin B1 intake was associated with a 23% reduction in constipation risk (P = .034).
- Additionally, a subgroup analysis found that higher B1 intake was associated with a reduction in constipation risk of 20% in men, 16% in people without hypertension, and 14% in those without diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“This association suggests that enhanced intake of vitamin B1 through diet may facilitate softer stools and heightened intestinal motility, thereby potentially alleviating constipation symptoms. Consequently, healthcare professionals are advised to prioritize the promotion of a well-balanced diet as an initial therapeutic approach, preceding medical interventions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wenyi Du, the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Stomatological Hospital, Suzhou, China, and Wuxi People’s Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi Medical Center, Wuxi, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
A causal relationship could not be established between vitamin B1 intake and constipation owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. The study relied on patient interviews and patient self-reported data. Additionally, 24-hour dietary recalls may not have accurately reflected the long-term eating habits of the participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Increased dietary intake of vitamin B1 is associated with a lower prevalence of constipation, particularly among men and individuals without hypertension or diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2005-2010 involving 10,371 adults aged ≥ 20 years.
- Participants provided information on fecal characteristics and bowel movement frequency, which was documented for 30 days prior to data collection.
- Constipation was established by either frequency of bowel movements (fewer than three per week) or stool consistency (Bristol Stool Scale type 1 or 2).
- Data on vitamin B1 intake were collected through 24-hour total nutritional intake recall interviews. Patients were divided into three groups based on their level of B1 intake: 0.064-1.21 mg, 1.21-1.76 mg, and 1.76-12.61 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 10.8% of participants were identified as having constipation.
- Greater dietary vitamin B1 intake was associated with a 23% reduction in constipation risk (P = .034).
- Additionally, a subgroup analysis found that higher B1 intake was associated with a reduction in constipation risk of 20% in men, 16% in people without hypertension, and 14% in those without diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“This association suggests that enhanced intake of vitamin B1 through diet may facilitate softer stools and heightened intestinal motility, thereby potentially alleviating constipation symptoms. Consequently, healthcare professionals are advised to prioritize the promotion of a well-balanced diet as an initial therapeutic approach, preceding medical interventions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wenyi Du, the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Stomatological Hospital, Suzhou, China, and Wuxi People’s Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi Medical Center, Wuxi, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
A causal relationship could not be established between vitamin B1 intake and constipation owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. The study relied on patient interviews and patient self-reported data. Additionally, 24-hour dietary recalls may not have accurately reflected the long-term eating habits of the participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For Richer, for Poorer: Low-Carb Diets Work for All Incomes
For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.
Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.
She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.
“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.”
Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.
Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.
“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.
Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened.
“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”
I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.
Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.
Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.
Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis.
A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides.
Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.
Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds.
Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado.
“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.
Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com.
Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.
Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked.
A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.
Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.
Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.”
Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice.
A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.
It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.
Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.
When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said.
Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients.
This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged.
OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.)
Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine.
Tools and Tips for Clinicians:
- Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
- Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
- Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
- Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
- Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and
Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.
Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.
She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.
“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.”
Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.
Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.
“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.
Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened.
“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”
I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.
Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.
Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.
Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis.
A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides.
Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.
Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds.
Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado.
“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.
Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com.
Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.
Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked.
A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.
Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.
Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.”
Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice.
A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.
It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.
Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.
When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said.
Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients.
This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged.
OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.)
Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine.
Tools and Tips for Clinicians:
- Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
- Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
- Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
- Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
- Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and
Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.
Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.
She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.
“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.”
Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.
Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.
“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.
Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened.
“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”
I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.
Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.
Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.
Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis.
A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides.
Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.
Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds.
Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado.
“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.
Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com.
Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.
Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked.
A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.
Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.
Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.”
Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice.
A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.
It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.
Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.
When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said.
Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients.
This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged.
OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.)
Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine.
Tools and Tips for Clinicians:
- Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
- Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
- Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
- Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
- Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and
Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pulsed Field Ablation for AF: Are US Electrophysiologists Too Easily Impressed?
It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market.
Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data.
Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples.
The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF.
Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.
A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters.
The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation.
The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further.
Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone.
What About PFA Efficacy?
I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF.
The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation.
Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged.
What About PFA Safety?
In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur.
The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure.
No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event.
One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption.
What About Speed and Cost?
Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.
I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs.
Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system.
What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA?
So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.
The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user.
One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released.
Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure.
It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe.
But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies.
Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market.
Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data.
Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples.
The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF.
Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.
A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters.
The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation.
The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further.
Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone.
What About PFA Efficacy?
I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF.
The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation.
Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged.
What About PFA Safety?
In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur.
The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure.
No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event.
One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption.
What About Speed and Cost?
Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.
I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs.
Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system.
What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA?
So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.
The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user.
One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released.
Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure.
It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe.
But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies.
Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market.
Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data.
Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples.
The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF.
Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.
A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters.
The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation.
The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further.
Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone.
What About PFA Efficacy?
I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF.
The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation.
Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged.
What About PFA Safety?
In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur.
The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure.
No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event.
One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption.
What About Speed and Cost?
Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.
I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs.
Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system.
What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA?
So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.
The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user.
One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released.
Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure.
It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe.
But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies.
Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.