Cardiology

A patient who developed atrial fibrillation resulting from the failure to adjust the levothyroxine dose after rapid, significant weight loss while on the antiobesity drug tirzepatide (Zepbound) serves as a key reminder in managing patients experiencing rapid weight loss, either from antiobesity medications or any other means: Patients taking medications with weight-based dosing need to have their doses closely monitored.

“Failing to monitor and adjust dosing of these [and other] medications during a period of rapid weight loss may lead to supratherapeutic — even toxic — levels, as was seen in this [case],” underscore the authors of an editorial regarding the Teachable Moment case, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Toxicities from excessive doses can have a range of detrimental effects. In terms of thyroid medicine, the failure to adjust levothyroxine treatment for hypothyroidism in cases of rapid weight loss can lead to thyrotoxicosis, and in older patients in particular, a resulting thyrotropin level < 0.1 mIU/L is associated with as much as a threefold increased risk for atrial fibrillation, as observed in the report. 
 

Case Demonstrates Risks

The case involved a 62-year-old man with obesity, hypothyroidism, and type 1 diabetes who presented to the emergency department with palpitations, excessive sweating, confusion, fever, and hand tremors. Upon being diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, the patient was immediately treated. 

His medical history revealed the underlying culprit: Six months earlier, the patient had started treatment with the gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide (GLP) 1 dual agonist tirzepatide. As is typical with the drug, the patient’s weight quickly plummeted, dropping from a starting body mass index of 44.4 down to 31.2 after 6 months and a decrease in body weight from 132 kg to 93 kg (a loss of 39 kg [approximately 86 lb]).

Despite the substantial change in body weight, his initial dose of 200 µg of levothyroxine, received for hypothyroidism, was not adjusted.

When he was prescribed tirzepatide, 2.5 mg weekly, for obesity, the patient had been recommended to increase the dose every 4 weeks as tolerated and, importantly, to have a follow-up visit in a month. But because he lived in different states seasonally, the follow-up never occurred.

Upon his emergency department visit, the patient’s thyrotropin level had dropped from 1.9 mIU/L at the first visit 6 months earlier to 0.001 mIU/L (well within the atrial fibrillation risk range), and his free thyroxine level (fT4) was 7.26 ng/ dL — substantially outside of the normal range of about 0.9-1.7 ng/dL for adults. 

“The patient had 4-times higher fT4 levels of the upper limit,” first author Kagan E. Karakus, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, told this news organization. “That is why he had experienced the adverse event of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Thyrotoxicosis Symptoms Can Be ‘Insidious,’ Levothyroxine Should Be Monitored

Although tirzepatide has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, obesity is on the rise among patients with this disorder and recent research has shown a more than 10% reduction in body weight in 6 months and significant reductions in A1c with various doses. 

Of note, in the current case, although the patient’s levothyroxine dose was not adjusted, his insulin dose was gradually self-decreased during his tirzepatide treatment to prevent hypoglycemia.

“If insulin treatment is excessive in diabetes, it causes hypoglycemia, [and] people with type 1 diabetes will recognize the signs of hypoglycemia related to excessive insulin earlier,” Dr. Karakus said.

If symptoms appear, patients can reduce their insulin doses on their own; however, the symptoms of thyrotoxicosis caused by excessive levothyroxine can be more insidious compared with hypoglycemia, he explained. 

“Although patients can change their insulin doses, they cannot change the levothyroxine doses since it requires a blood test [thyroid-stimulating hormone; TSH] and a new prescription of the new dose.”

The key lesson is that “following levothyroxine treatment initiation or dose adjustment, 4-6 weeks is the optimal duration to recheck [the] thyrotropin level and adjust the dose as needed,” Dr. Karakus said.
 

Key Medications to Monitor

Other common outpatient medications that should be closely monitored in patients experiencing rapid weight loss, by any method, range from anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, and antituberculosis drugs to antibiotics and antifungals, the authors note.

Of note, medications with a narrow therapeutic index include phenytoin, warfarin, lithium carbonate, digoxin theophylline, tacrolimus, valproic acid, carbamazepine, and cyclosporine.

The failure to make necessary dose adjustments “is seen more often since the newer antiobesity drugs reduce a great amount of weight within months, almost as rapidly as bariatric surgery,” Dr. Karakus said.

“It is very important for physicians to be aware of the weight-based medications and narrow therapeutic index medications since their doses should be adjusted carefully, especially during weight loss,” he added.

Furthermore, “the patient should also know that weight reduction medication may cause adverse effects like nausea, vomiting and also may affect metabolism of other medications such that some medication doses should be adjusted regularly.”

In the editorial published with the study, Tyrone A. Johnson, MD, of the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues note that the need for close monitoring is particularly important with older patients, who, in addition to having a higher likelihood of comorbidities, commonly have polypharmacy that could increase the potential for adverse effects.

Another key area concern is the emergence of direct-to-consumer avenues for GLP-1/GIP agonists for the many who either cannot afford or do not have access to the drugs, providing further opportunities for treatment without appropriate clinical oversight, they add.

Overall, the case “highlights the potential dangers underlying under-supervised prescribing of GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists and affirms the need for strong partnerships between patients and their clinicians during their use,” they wrote. 

“These medications are best used in collaboration with continuity care teams, in context of a patient’s entire health, and in comprehensive risk-benefit assessment throughout the entire duration of treatment.”
 

A Caveat: Subclinical Levothyroxine Dosing

Commenting on the study, Matthew Ettleson, MD, a clinical instructor of medicine in the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, University of Chicago, noted the important caveat that patients with hypothyroidism are commonly on subclinical doses, with varying dose adjustment needs.

“The patient in the case was clearly on a replacement level dose. However, many patients are on low doses of levothyroxine (75 µg or lower) for subclinical hypothyroidism, and, in general, I think the risks are lower with patients with subclinical hypothyroidism on lower doses of levothyroxine,” he told this news organization.

Because of that, “frequent TSH monitoring may be excessive in this population,” he said. “I would hesitate to empirically lower the dose with weight loss, unless it was clear that the patient was unlikely to follow up.

“Checking TSH at a more frequent interval and adjusting the dose accordingly should be adequate to prevent situations like this case.”

Dr. Karakus, Dr. Ettleson, and the editorial authors had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A patient who developed atrial fibrillation resulting from the failure to adjust the levothyroxine dose after rapid, significant weight loss while on the antiobesity drug tirzepatide (Zepbound) serves as a key reminder in managing patients experiencing rapid weight loss, either from antiobesity medications or any other means: Patients taking medications with weight-based dosing need to have their doses closely monitored.

“Failing to monitor and adjust dosing of these [and other] medications during a period of rapid weight loss may lead to supratherapeutic — even toxic — levels, as was seen in this [case],” underscore the authors of an editorial regarding the Teachable Moment case, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Toxicities from excessive doses can have a range of detrimental effects. In terms of thyroid medicine, the failure to adjust levothyroxine treatment for hypothyroidism in cases of rapid weight loss can lead to thyrotoxicosis, and in older patients in particular, a resulting thyrotropin level < 0.1 mIU/L is associated with as much as a threefold increased risk for atrial fibrillation, as observed in the report. 
 

Case Demonstrates Risks

The case involved a 62-year-old man with obesity, hypothyroidism, and type 1 diabetes who presented to the emergency department with palpitations, excessive sweating, confusion, fever, and hand tremors. Upon being diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, the patient was immediately treated. 

His medical history revealed the underlying culprit: Six months earlier, the patient had started treatment with the gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide (GLP) 1 dual agonist tirzepatide. As is typical with the drug, the patient’s weight quickly plummeted, dropping from a starting body mass index of 44.4 down to 31.2 after 6 months and a decrease in body weight from 132 kg to 93 kg (a loss of 39 kg [approximately 86 lb]).

Despite the substantial change in body weight, his initial dose of 200 µg of levothyroxine, received for hypothyroidism, was not adjusted.

When he was prescribed tirzepatide, 2.5 mg weekly, for obesity, the patient had been recommended to increase the dose every 4 weeks as tolerated and, importantly, to have a follow-up visit in a month. But because he lived in different states seasonally, the follow-up never occurred.

Upon his emergency department visit, the patient’s thyrotropin level had dropped from 1.9 mIU/L at the first visit 6 months earlier to 0.001 mIU/L (well within the atrial fibrillation risk range), and his free thyroxine level (fT4) was 7.26 ng/ dL — substantially outside of the normal range of about 0.9-1.7 ng/dL for adults. 

“The patient had 4-times higher fT4 levels of the upper limit,” first author Kagan E. Karakus, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, told this news organization. “That is why he had experienced the adverse event of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Thyrotoxicosis Symptoms Can Be ‘Insidious,’ Levothyroxine Should Be Monitored

Although tirzepatide has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, obesity is on the rise among patients with this disorder and recent research has shown a more than 10% reduction in body weight in 6 months and significant reductions in A1c with various doses. 

Of note, in the current case, although the patient’s levothyroxine dose was not adjusted, his insulin dose was gradually self-decreased during his tirzepatide treatment to prevent hypoglycemia.

“If insulin treatment is excessive in diabetes, it causes hypoglycemia, [and] people with type 1 diabetes will recognize the signs of hypoglycemia related to excessive insulin earlier,” Dr. Karakus said.

If symptoms appear, patients can reduce their insulin doses on their own; however, the symptoms of thyrotoxicosis caused by excessive levothyroxine can be more insidious compared with hypoglycemia, he explained. 

“Although patients can change their insulin doses, they cannot change the levothyroxine doses since it requires a blood test [thyroid-stimulating hormone; TSH] and a new prescription of the new dose.”

The key lesson is that “following levothyroxine treatment initiation or dose adjustment, 4-6 weeks is the optimal duration to recheck [the] thyrotropin level and adjust the dose as needed,” Dr. Karakus said.
 

Key Medications to Monitor

Other common outpatient medications that should be closely monitored in patients experiencing rapid weight loss, by any method, range from anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, and antituberculosis drugs to antibiotics and antifungals, the authors note.

Of note, medications with a narrow therapeutic index include phenytoin, warfarin, lithium carbonate, digoxin theophylline, tacrolimus, valproic acid, carbamazepine, and cyclosporine.

The failure to make necessary dose adjustments “is seen more often since the newer antiobesity drugs reduce a great amount of weight within months, almost as rapidly as bariatric surgery,” Dr. Karakus said.

“It is very important for physicians to be aware of the weight-based medications and narrow therapeutic index medications since their doses should be adjusted carefully, especially during weight loss,” he added.

Furthermore, “the patient should also know that weight reduction medication may cause adverse effects like nausea, vomiting and also may affect metabolism of other medications such that some medication doses should be adjusted regularly.”

In the editorial published with the study, Tyrone A. Johnson, MD, of the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues note that the need for close monitoring is particularly important with older patients, who, in addition to having a higher likelihood of comorbidities, commonly have polypharmacy that could increase the potential for adverse effects.

Another key area concern is the emergence of direct-to-consumer avenues for GLP-1/GIP agonists for the many who either cannot afford or do not have access to the drugs, providing further opportunities for treatment without appropriate clinical oversight, they add.

Overall, the case “highlights the potential dangers underlying under-supervised prescribing of GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists and affirms the need for strong partnerships between patients and their clinicians during their use,” they wrote. 

“These medications are best used in collaboration with continuity care teams, in context of a patient’s entire health, and in comprehensive risk-benefit assessment throughout the entire duration of treatment.”
 

A Caveat: Subclinical Levothyroxine Dosing

Commenting on the study, Matthew Ettleson, MD, a clinical instructor of medicine in the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, University of Chicago, noted the important caveat that patients with hypothyroidism are commonly on subclinical doses, with varying dose adjustment needs.

“The patient in the case was clearly on a replacement level dose. However, many patients are on low doses of levothyroxine (75 µg or lower) for subclinical hypothyroidism, and, in general, I think the risks are lower with patients with subclinical hypothyroidism on lower doses of levothyroxine,” he told this news organization.

Because of that, “frequent TSH monitoring may be excessive in this population,” he said. “I would hesitate to empirically lower the dose with weight loss, unless it was clear that the patient was unlikely to follow up.

“Checking TSH at a more frequent interval and adjusting the dose accordingly should be adequate to prevent situations like this case.”

Dr. Karakus, Dr. Ettleson, and the editorial authors had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A patient who developed atrial fibrillation resulting from the failure to adjust the levothyroxine dose after rapid, significant weight loss while on the antiobesity drug tirzepatide (Zepbound) serves as a key reminder in managing patients experiencing rapid weight loss, either from antiobesity medications or any other means: Patients taking medications with weight-based dosing need to have their doses closely monitored.

“Failing to monitor and adjust dosing of these [and other] medications during a period of rapid weight loss may lead to supratherapeutic — even toxic — levels, as was seen in this [case],” underscore the authors of an editorial regarding the Teachable Moment case, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Toxicities from excessive doses can have a range of detrimental effects. In terms of thyroid medicine, the failure to adjust levothyroxine treatment for hypothyroidism in cases of rapid weight loss can lead to thyrotoxicosis, and in older patients in particular, a resulting thyrotropin level < 0.1 mIU/L is associated with as much as a threefold increased risk for atrial fibrillation, as observed in the report. 
 

Case Demonstrates Risks

The case involved a 62-year-old man with obesity, hypothyroidism, and type 1 diabetes who presented to the emergency department with palpitations, excessive sweating, confusion, fever, and hand tremors. Upon being diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, the patient was immediately treated. 

His medical history revealed the underlying culprit: Six months earlier, the patient had started treatment with the gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide (GLP) 1 dual agonist tirzepatide. As is typical with the drug, the patient’s weight quickly plummeted, dropping from a starting body mass index of 44.4 down to 31.2 after 6 months and a decrease in body weight from 132 kg to 93 kg (a loss of 39 kg [approximately 86 lb]).

Despite the substantial change in body weight, his initial dose of 200 µg of levothyroxine, received for hypothyroidism, was not adjusted.

When he was prescribed tirzepatide, 2.5 mg weekly, for obesity, the patient had been recommended to increase the dose every 4 weeks as tolerated and, importantly, to have a follow-up visit in a month. But because he lived in different states seasonally, the follow-up never occurred.

Upon his emergency department visit, the patient’s thyrotropin level had dropped from 1.9 mIU/L at the first visit 6 months earlier to 0.001 mIU/L (well within the atrial fibrillation risk range), and his free thyroxine level (fT4) was 7.26 ng/ dL — substantially outside of the normal range of about 0.9-1.7 ng/dL for adults. 

“The patient had 4-times higher fT4 levels of the upper limit,” first author Kagan E. Karakus, MD, of the Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, told this news organization. “That is why he had experienced the adverse event of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Thyrotoxicosis Symptoms Can Be ‘Insidious,’ Levothyroxine Should Be Monitored

Although tirzepatide has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 1 diabetes, obesity is on the rise among patients with this disorder and recent research has shown a more than 10% reduction in body weight in 6 months and significant reductions in A1c with various doses. 

Of note, in the current case, although the patient’s levothyroxine dose was not adjusted, his insulin dose was gradually self-decreased during his tirzepatide treatment to prevent hypoglycemia.

“If insulin treatment is excessive in diabetes, it causes hypoglycemia, [and] people with type 1 diabetes will recognize the signs of hypoglycemia related to excessive insulin earlier,” Dr. Karakus said.

If symptoms appear, patients can reduce their insulin doses on their own; however, the symptoms of thyrotoxicosis caused by excessive levothyroxine can be more insidious compared with hypoglycemia, he explained. 

“Although patients can change their insulin doses, they cannot change the levothyroxine doses since it requires a blood test [thyroid-stimulating hormone; TSH] and a new prescription of the new dose.”

The key lesson is that “following levothyroxine treatment initiation or dose adjustment, 4-6 weeks is the optimal duration to recheck [the] thyrotropin level and adjust the dose as needed,” Dr. Karakus said.
 

Key Medications to Monitor

Other common outpatient medications that should be closely monitored in patients experiencing rapid weight loss, by any method, range from anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, and antituberculosis drugs to antibiotics and antifungals, the authors note.

Of note, medications with a narrow therapeutic index include phenytoin, warfarin, lithium carbonate, digoxin theophylline, tacrolimus, valproic acid, carbamazepine, and cyclosporine.

The failure to make necessary dose adjustments “is seen more often since the newer antiobesity drugs reduce a great amount of weight within months, almost as rapidly as bariatric surgery,” Dr. Karakus said.

“It is very important for physicians to be aware of the weight-based medications and narrow therapeutic index medications since their doses should be adjusted carefully, especially during weight loss,” he added.

Furthermore, “the patient should also know that weight reduction medication may cause adverse effects like nausea, vomiting and also may affect metabolism of other medications such that some medication doses should be adjusted regularly.”

In the editorial published with the study, Tyrone A. Johnson, MD, of the Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues note that the need for close monitoring is particularly important with older patients, who, in addition to having a higher likelihood of comorbidities, commonly have polypharmacy that could increase the potential for adverse effects.

Another key area concern is the emergence of direct-to-consumer avenues for GLP-1/GIP agonists for the many who either cannot afford or do not have access to the drugs, providing further opportunities for treatment without appropriate clinical oversight, they add.

Overall, the case “highlights the potential dangers underlying under-supervised prescribing of GLP-1/GIP receptor agonists and affirms the need for strong partnerships between patients and their clinicians during their use,” they wrote. 

“These medications are best used in collaboration with continuity care teams, in context of a patient’s entire health, and in comprehensive risk-benefit assessment throughout the entire duration of treatment.”
 

A Caveat: Subclinical Levothyroxine Dosing

Commenting on the study, Matthew Ettleson, MD, a clinical instructor of medicine in the Section of Endocrinology, Diabetes, & Metabolism, University of Chicago, noted the important caveat that patients with hypothyroidism are commonly on subclinical doses, with varying dose adjustment needs.

“The patient in the case was clearly on a replacement level dose. However, many patients are on low doses of levothyroxine (75 µg or lower) for subclinical hypothyroidism, and, in general, I think the risks are lower with patients with subclinical hypothyroidism on lower doses of levothyroxine,” he told this news organization.

Because of that, “frequent TSH monitoring may be excessive in this population,” he said. “I would hesitate to empirically lower the dose with weight loss, unless it was clear that the patient was unlikely to follow up.

“Checking TSH at a more frequent interval and adjusting the dose accordingly should be adequate to prevent situations like this case.”

Dr. Karakus, Dr. Ettleson, and the editorial authors had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least 25% of unresponsive patients with a disorder of consciousness show signs of brain activity, an estimate that is higher than previous studies suggest.

“We found that at least 1 in 4 patients who are unresponsive to commands might actually be quite present and highly cognitive,” said study investigator Nicholas D. Schiff, MD, Feil Family Brain & Mind Research Institute and Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, Rockefeller University Hospital, New York.

“In other words, if you go to the bedside and carefully examine someone with a severe brain injury and find no evidence of responsiveness, no one has been able to give you an a priori number to say how likely you are to be wrong in thinking this person is actually unaware, not processing language, and not capable of high-level cognitive work. And the answer to that now is at least 1 in 4 times.”

The findings were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Clinical Implications? 

Cognitive motor dissociation (CMD) is a condition whereby patients with a severe brain injury who are unresponsive to commands at the bedside show brain activity on functional MRI (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) when presented with selective motor imagery commands, such as “imagine playing tennis,” or “ imagine opening and closing your hand.”

Previous research shows that CMD is present in 10%-20% of people with a disorder of consciousness, a rate similar to that in patients with acute or chronic brain injury.

Understanding that a patient who appears unconscious has signs of cognitive processing could change the way clinicians and family interact with such individuals. Unresponsive patients who are aware may eventually be able to harness emerging communication technologies such as brain-computer interfaces.

In addition, knowing an individual’s CMD status could aid in prognosis. “We know from one study that there’s a four times increased likelihood that patients will be independent in a year in their function if they have cognitive motor dissociation,” said Dr. Schiff.

Unlike most previous studies of CMD, which were conducted at single sites and had relatively small cohorts, this new study included 353 adults with a disorder of consciousness (mean age, 37.9 years; 64% male) at six multinational sites.

Participants were recruited using a variety of methods, including consecutive enrollment of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit and enrollment of those with chronic illness or injury who were in the postacute phase of brain injury.
 

Response to Commands

Study participants were at different stages of recovery from an acute brain injury that had occurred an average of 8 months before the study started.

To determine the presence or absence of an observable response to commands among participants, trained staff used the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised (CRS-R); scores on this instrument range from 0 to 23, and higher scores indicate better neurobehavioral function.

About 40% of individuals were diagnosed with coma or vegetative state, 29% with minimally conscious state–minus, and 22% with minimally conscious state–plus. In all, 10% had emerged from a minimally conscious state.

Researchers assessed response to timed and repeated commands using fMRI or EEG in participants without an observable response to verbal commands, including those with a behavioral diagnosis of coma, vegetative state, or minimally conscious state–minus, and in participants with an observable response to verbal commands.

Of the 353 study participants, 61% underwent at least one fMRI assessment and 74% at least one EEG assessment. Both fMRI and EEG were performed in 35% of participants.

Dr. Schiff explained the two assessment types provide slightly different information, in that they measuring different types of brain signals. He also noted that although “every medical center in the world” has EEG, many do not have fMRI.

The brain imaging assessments captured brain activity within the motor area of the frontal cortex when tasked with motor imagery.

Of the 241 participants deemed to be in a coma or vegetative state or minimally conscious state–minus on the basis of CRS-R score, 60 (25%) had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both.

The percentage of participants with CMD varied across study sites, from 2% to 45%, but Dr. Schiff said the reason for this is unclear. 

The proportion of participants with CMD may have been even higher if all individuals had been assessed with both imaging techniques, he said.
 

Higher Rate of Awareness Than in Previous Research

The investigators noted that the percentage of participants with CMD in their study was up to 10 percentage points higher than in previous studies. This may be due to the multimodal approach that classified participants undergoing assessment with both fMRI and EEG on the basis of responses on either technique, they said. 

The median age was lower among participants with CMD than those without CMD (30.5 years vs 45.3 years).

Compared with participants without CMD, a higher percentage of those with such dissociation had brain trauma as an etiologic factor (65% vs 38%) and a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–minus on the CRS-R (53% vs 38%).

Among people with CMD, 18% were assessed with fMRI only, 22% with EEG only, and 60% with both fMRI and EEG.

Dr. Schiff noted that the use of both fMRI and EEG appears to be more sensitive in detecting brain activity during tasks compared with use of one of these techniques alone.

Of the 112 participants with a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–plus or who had emerged from the minimally conscious state, 38% had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both. Among these participants, 23% were assessed with fMRI only, 19% with EEG only, and 58% with both fMRI and EEG.

Research shows “it’s very clear that people with severe brain injury continue to get better over time,” noted Dr. Schiff. “Every month and week matters, and so it probably is the case that a lot of these patients are picking up the level of recovery, and the later we go out to measure them, the more likely we are to find people who are CMD than not.”

These new results should prompt further study to explore whether detection of CMD can lead to improved outcomes, the investigators noted. “In addition, the standardization, validation, and simplification of task-based fMRI and EEG methods that are used to detect cognitive motor dissociation are needed to prompt widespread clinical integration of these techniques and investigation of the bioethical implications of the findings.”

All study participants with chronic brain injury had survived their initial illness or injury and had access to a research facility with advanced fMRI and EEG capabilities. “This survival bias may reflect greater cognitive reserve and resilience over time among the participants. As such, the results of our study may not be generalizable to the overall population of patients with cognitive motor dissociation,” the investigators wrote.

Another study limitation was that participating sites used heterogeneous strategies to acquire, analyze, and interpret data, which led to differences in the number, type, and ordering of the cognitive tasks assessed on fMRI and EEG.

“These differences, along with variations in recruitment strategies and participant characteristics, may have contributed to the unequal percentage of participants with cognitive motor dissociation observed at each site. Our findings may therefore not be generalizable across all centers,” the researchers wrote. 

Only a few academic medical centers have the specially trained personnel and techniques needed to assess patients for CMD — which, the researchers noted, limits the feasibility of performing these assessments in general practice.
 

Challenging Research

Commenting on the research, Aarti Sarwal, MD, professor of neurology and section chief, Neurocritical Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, noted that this was a “very challenging” study to perform, given that only a few academic centers are equipped to perform both fMRI and quantitative EEG analysis.

“In general, finding patients this far out, who have access to clinical, radiological, and electrophysiological testing and were provided good care enough to receive these, is a mammoth task in itself.” 

Dr. Sarwal said the study builds on efforts of the Curing Coma campaign , a clinical, scientific, and public health effort of the Neurocritical Care Society to tackle the concept of coma as a treatable medical entity.

“It continues to highlight the challenges of prognostication in acute brain injured patients by showing a higher presence of cognitive function than previously perceived,” she said.

Dr. Sarwal believes that the study’s largest impact is underscoring the need for more research into understanding the degree and quality of cognitive processing in patients with a disorder of consciousness. But it also underlines the need for a “healthy debate” on the cost/benefit analysis of pursuing such research, given the limited number of patients with access to resources. 

“This debate needs to include the caregivers and families outside the traditional realms of stakeholders overseeing the science.” 

Although communication with comatose patients is still “a ways away,” this research is “a step in the right direction,” said Dr. Sarwal. 

The study was funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and others. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Sarwal report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

At least 25% of unresponsive patients with a disorder of consciousness show signs of brain activity, an estimate that is higher than previous studies suggest.

“We found that at least 1 in 4 patients who are unresponsive to commands might actually be quite present and highly cognitive,” said study investigator Nicholas D. Schiff, MD, Feil Family Brain & Mind Research Institute and Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, Rockefeller University Hospital, New York.

“In other words, if you go to the bedside and carefully examine someone with a severe brain injury and find no evidence of responsiveness, no one has been able to give you an a priori number to say how likely you are to be wrong in thinking this person is actually unaware, not processing language, and not capable of high-level cognitive work. And the answer to that now is at least 1 in 4 times.”

The findings were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Clinical Implications? 

Cognitive motor dissociation (CMD) is a condition whereby patients with a severe brain injury who are unresponsive to commands at the bedside show brain activity on functional MRI (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) when presented with selective motor imagery commands, such as “imagine playing tennis,” or “ imagine opening and closing your hand.”

Previous research shows that CMD is present in 10%-20% of people with a disorder of consciousness, a rate similar to that in patients with acute or chronic brain injury.

Understanding that a patient who appears unconscious has signs of cognitive processing could change the way clinicians and family interact with such individuals. Unresponsive patients who are aware may eventually be able to harness emerging communication technologies such as brain-computer interfaces.

In addition, knowing an individual’s CMD status could aid in prognosis. “We know from one study that there’s a four times increased likelihood that patients will be independent in a year in their function if they have cognitive motor dissociation,” said Dr. Schiff.

Unlike most previous studies of CMD, which were conducted at single sites and had relatively small cohorts, this new study included 353 adults with a disorder of consciousness (mean age, 37.9 years; 64% male) at six multinational sites.

Participants were recruited using a variety of methods, including consecutive enrollment of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit and enrollment of those with chronic illness or injury who were in the postacute phase of brain injury.
 

Response to Commands

Study participants were at different stages of recovery from an acute brain injury that had occurred an average of 8 months before the study started.

To determine the presence or absence of an observable response to commands among participants, trained staff used the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised (CRS-R); scores on this instrument range from 0 to 23, and higher scores indicate better neurobehavioral function.

About 40% of individuals were diagnosed with coma or vegetative state, 29% with minimally conscious state–minus, and 22% with minimally conscious state–plus. In all, 10% had emerged from a minimally conscious state.

Researchers assessed response to timed and repeated commands using fMRI or EEG in participants without an observable response to verbal commands, including those with a behavioral diagnosis of coma, vegetative state, or minimally conscious state–minus, and in participants with an observable response to verbal commands.

Of the 353 study participants, 61% underwent at least one fMRI assessment and 74% at least one EEG assessment. Both fMRI and EEG were performed in 35% of participants.

Dr. Schiff explained the two assessment types provide slightly different information, in that they measuring different types of brain signals. He also noted that although “every medical center in the world” has EEG, many do not have fMRI.

The brain imaging assessments captured brain activity within the motor area of the frontal cortex when tasked with motor imagery.

Of the 241 participants deemed to be in a coma or vegetative state or minimally conscious state–minus on the basis of CRS-R score, 60 (25%) had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both.

The percentage of participants with CMD varied across study sites, from 2% to 45%, but Dr. Schiff said the reason for this is unclear. 

The proportion of participants with CMD may have been even higher if all individuals had been assessed with both imaging techniques, he said.
 

Higher Rate of Awareness Than in Previous Research

The investigators noted that the percentage of participants with CMD in their study was up to 10 percentage points higher than in previous studies. This may be due to the multimodal approach that classified participants undergoing assessment with both fMRI and EEG on the basis of responses on either technique, they said. 

The median age was lower among participants with CMD than those without CMD (30.5 years vs 45.3 years).

Compared with participants without CMD, a higher percentage of those with such dissociation had brain trauma as an etiologic factor (65% vs 38%) and a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–minus on the CRS-R (53% vs 38%).

Among people with CMD, 18% were assessed with fMRI only, 22% with EEG only, and 60% with both fMRI and EEG.

Dr. Schiff noted that the use of both fMRI and EEG appears to be more sensitive in detecting brain activity during tasks compared with use of one of these techniques alone.

Of the 112 participants with a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–plus or who had emerged from the minimally conscious state, 38% had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both. Among these participants, 23% were assessed with fMRI only, 19% with EEG only, and 58% with both fMRI and EEG.

Research shows “it’s very clear that people with severe brain injury continue to get better over time,” noted Dr. Schiff. “Every month and week matters, and so it probably is the case that a lot of these patients are picking up the level of recovery, and the later we go out to measure them, the more likely we are to find people who are CMD than not.”

These new results should prompt further study to explore whether detection of CMD can lead to improved outcomes, the investigators noted. “In addition, the standardization, validation, and simplification of task-based fMRI and EEG methods that are used to detect cognitive motor dissociation are needed to prompt widespread clinical integration of these techniques and investigation of the bioethical implications of the findings.”

All study participants with chronic brain injury had survived their initial illness or injury and had access to a research facility with advanced fMRI and EEG capabilities. “This survival bias may reflect greater cognitive reserve and resilience over time among the participants. As such, the results of our study may not be generalizable to the overall population of patients with cognitive motor dissociation,” the investigators wrote.

Another study limitation was that participating sites used heterogeneous strategies to acquire, analyze, and interpret data, which led to differences in the number, type, and ordering of the cognitive tasks assessed on fMRI and EEG.

“These differences, along with variations in recruitment strategies and participant characteristics, may have contributed to the unequal percentage of participants with cognitive motor dissociation observed at each site. Our findings may therefore not be generalizable across all centers,” the researchers wrote. 

Only a few academic medical centers have the specially trained personnel and techniques needed to assess patients for CMD — which, the researchers noted, limits the feasibility of performing these assessments in general practice.
 

Challenging Research

Commenting on the research, Aarti Sarwal, MD, professor of neurology and section chief, Neurocritical Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, noted that this was a “very challenging” study to perform, given that only a few academic centers are equipped to perform both fMRI and quantitative EEG analysis.

“In general, finding patients this far out, who have access to clinical, radiological, and electrophysiological testing and were provided good care enough to receive these, is a mammoth task in itself.” 

Dr. Sarwal said the study builds on efforts of the Curing Coma campaign , a clinical, scientific, and public health effort of the Neurocritical Care Society to tackle the concept of coma as a treatable medical entity.

“It continues to highlight the challenges of prognostication in acute brain injured patients by showing a higher presence of cognitive function than previously perceived,” she said.

Dr. Sarwal believes that the study’s largest impact is underscoring the need for more research into understanding the degree and quality of cognitive processing in patients with a disorder of consciousness. But it also underlines the need for a “healthy debate” on the cost/benefit analysis of pursuing such research, given the limited number of patients with access to resources. 

“This debate needs to include the caregivers and families outside the traditional realms of stakeholders overseeing the science.” 

Although communication with comatose patients is still “a ways away,” this research is “a step in the right direction,” said Dr. Sarwal. 

The study was funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and others. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Sarwal report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

At least 25% of unresponsive patients with a disorder of consciousness show signs of brain activity, an estimate that is higher than previous studies suggest.

“We found that at least 1 in 4 patients who are unresponsive to commands might actually be quite present and highly cognitive,” said study investigator Nicholas D. Schiff, MD, Feil Family Brain & Mind Research Institute and Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, Rockefeller University Hospital, New York.

“In other words, if you go to the bedside and carefully examine someone with a severe brain injury and find no evidence of responsiveness, no one has been able to give you an a priori number to say how likely you are to be wrong in thinking this person is actually unaware, not processing language, and not capable of high-level cognitive work. And the answer to that now is at least 1 in 4 times.”

The findings were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Clinical Implications? 

Cognitive motor dissociation (CMD) is a condition whereby patients with a severe brain injury who are unresponsive to commands at the bedside show brain activity on functional MRI (fMRI) or electroencephalography (EEG) when presented with selective motor imagery commands, such as “imagine playing tennis,” or “ imagine opening and closing your hand.”

Previous research shows that CMD is present in 10%-20% of people with a disorder of consciousness, a rate similar to that in patients with acute or chronic brain injury.

Understanding that a patient who appears unconscious has signs of cognitive processing could change the way clinicians and family interact with such individuals. Unresponsive patients who are aware may eventually be able to harness emerging communication technologies such as brain-computer interfaces.

In addition, knowing an individual’s CMD status could aid in prognosis. “We know from one study that there’s a four times increased likelihood that patients will be independent in a year in their function if they have cognitive motor dissociation,” said Dr. Schiff.

Unlike most previous studies of CMD, which were conducted at single sites and had relatively small cohorts, this new study included 353 adults with a disorder of consciousness (mean age, 37.9 years; 64% male) at six multinational sites.

Participants were recruited using a variety of methods, including consecutive enrollment of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit and enrollment of those with chronic illness or injury who were in the postacute phase of brain injury.
 

Response to Commands

Study participants were at different stages of recovery from an acute brain injury that had occurred an average of 8 months before the study started.

To determine the presence or absence of an observable response to commands among participants, trained staff used the Coma Recovery Scale–Revised (CRS-R); scores on this instrument range from 0 to 23, and higher scores indicate better neurobehavioral function.

About 40% of individuals were diagnosed with coma or vegetative state, 29% with minimally conscious state–minus, and 22% with minimally conscious state–plus. In all, 10% had emerged from a minimally conscious state.

Researchers assessed response to timed and repeated commands using fMRI or EEG in participants without an observable response to verbal commands, including those with a behavioral diagnosis of coma, vegetative state, or minimally conscious state–minus, and in participants with an observable response to verbal commands.

Of the 353 study participants, 61% underwent at least one fMRI assessment and 74% at least one EEG assessment. Both fMRI and EEG were performed in 35% of participants.

Dr. Schiff explained the two assessment types provide slightly different information, in that they measuring different types of brain signals. He also noted that although “every medical center in the world” has EEG, many do not have fMRI.

The brain imaging assessments captured brain activity within the motor area of the frontal cortex when tasked with motor imagery.

Of the 241 participants deemed to be in a coma or vegetative state or minimally conscious state–minus on the basis of CRS-R score, 60 (25%) had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both.

The percentage of participants with CMD varied across study sites, from 2% to 45%, but Dr. Schiff said the reason for this is unclear. 

The proportion of participants with CMD may have been even higher if all individuals had been assessed with both imaging techniques, he said.
 

Higher Rate of Awareness Than in Previous Research

The investigators noted that the percentage of participants with CMD in their study was up to 10 percentage points higher than in previous studies. This may be due to the multimodal approach that classified participants undergoing assessment with both fMRI and EEG on the basis of responses on either technique, they said. 

The median age was lower among participants with CMD than those without CMD (30.5 years vs 45.3 years).

Compared with participants without CMD, a higher percentage of those with such dissociation had brain trauma as an etiologic factor (65% vs 38%) and a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–minus on the CRS-R (53% vs 38%).

Among people with CMD, 18% were assessed with fMRI only, 22% with EEG only, and 60% with both fMRI and EEG.

Dr. Schiff noted that the use of both fMRI and EEG appears to be more sensitive in detecting brain activity during tasks compared with use of one of these techniques alone.

Of the 112 participants with a diagnosis of minimally conscious state–plus or who had emerged from the minimally conscious state, 38% had a response to commands on task-based fMRI, task-based EEG, or both. Among these participants, 23% were assessed with fMRI only, 19% with EEG only, and 58% with both fMRI and EEG.

Research shows “it’s very clear that people with severe brain injury continue to get better over time,” noted Dr. Schiff. “Every month and week matters, and so it probably is the case that a lot of these patients are picking up the level of recovery, and the later we go out to measure them, the more likely we are to find people who are CMD than not.”

These new results should prompt further study to explore whether detection of CMD can lead to improved outcomes, the investigators noted. “In addition, the standardization, validation, and simplification of task-based fMRI and EEG methods that are used to detect cognitive motor dissociation are needed to prompt widespread clinical integration of these techniques and investigation of the bioethical implications of the findings.”

All study participants with chronic brain injury had survived their initial illness or injury and had access to a research facility with advanced fMRI and EEG capabilities. “This survival bias may reflect greater cognitive reserve and resilience over time among the participants. As such, the results of our study may not be generalizable to the overall population of patients with cognitive motor dissociation,” the investigators wrote.

Another study limitation was that participating sites used heterogeneous strategies to acquire, analyze, and interpret data, which led to differences in the number, type, and ordering of the cognitive tasks assessed on fMRI and EEG.

“These differences, along with variations in recruitment strategies and participant characteristics, may have contributed to the unequal percentage of participants with cognitive motor dissociation observed at each site. Our findings may therefore not be generalizable across all centers,” the researchers wrote. 

Only a few academic medical centers have the specially trained personnel and techniques needed to assess patients for CMD — which, the researchers noted, limits the feasibility of performing these assessments in general practice.
 

Challenging Research

Commenting on the research, Aarti Sarwal, MD, professor of neurology and section chief, Neurocritical Care, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, noted that this was a “very challenging” study to perform, given that only a few academic centers are equipped to perform both fMRI and quantitative EEG analysis.

“In general, finding patients this far out, who have access to clinical, radiological, and electrophysiological testing and were provided good care enough to receive these, is a mammoth task in itself.” 

Dr. Sarwal said the study builds on efforts of the Curing Coma campaign , a clinical, scientific, and public health effort of the Neurocritical Care Society to tackle the concept of coma as a treatable medical entity.

“It continues to highlight the challenges of prognostication in acute brain injured patients by showing a higher presence of cognitive function than previously perceived,” she said.

Dr. Sarwal believes that the study’s largest impact is underscoring the need for more research into understanding the degree and quality of cognitive processing in patients with a disorder of consciousness. But it also underlines the need for a “healthy debate” on the cost/benefit analysis of pursuing such research, given the limited number of patients with access to resources. 

“This debate needs to include the caregivers and families outside the traditional realms of stakeholders overseeing the science.” 

Although communication with comatose patients is still “a ways away,” this research is “a step in the right direction,” said Dr. Sarwal. 

The study was funded by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and others. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Sarwal report no relevant financial disclosures.
 

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

• VA Overview
• Dermatology
• Depression and PTSD
• Diabetes
• Cardiology
• Arthritis
• Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
• Women's Health
• Substance Use Disorder
• Transgender and Gender-Diverse Care
• Respiratory Health
• Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
• Parkinson Disease
• Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)

• VA Overview
• Dermatology
• Depression and PTSD
• Diabetes
• Cardiology
• Arthritis
• Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
• Women's Health
• Substance Use Disorder
• Transgender and Gender-Diverse Care
• Respiratory Health
• Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
• Parkinson Disease
• Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)

• VA Overview
• Dermatology
• Depression and PTSD
• Diabetes
• Cardiology
• Arthritis
• Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
• Women's Health
• Substance Use Disorder
• Transgender and Gender-Diverse Care
• Respiratory Health
• Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD)
• Parkinson Disease
• Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2024.

TOPLINE:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having 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:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having 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:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having 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:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and inflammatory markers are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) nonusers but not in users, suggesting that biologics may reduce cardiovascular risk in RA even if remission is not achieved.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies reported reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with RA who respond to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors but not in nonresponders, highlighting the importance of controlling inflammation for cardiovascular protection.
• Researchers assessed whether bDMARDs modify the impact of disease activity and systemic inflammation on cardiovascular risk in 4370 patients (mean age, 55 years) with RA without cardiovascular disease from a 10-country observational cohort.
• The severity of RA disease activity was assessed using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels and 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on CRP (DAS28-CRP).
• Endpoints were time to first MACE — a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke — and time to first ischemic cardiovascular event (iCVE) — a composite of MACE plus revascularization, angina, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral arterial disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• The interaction between use of bDMARD and DAS28-CRP (P = .017) or CRP (P = .011) was significant for MACE.
• Each unit increase in DAS28-CRP increased the risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; P = .002) but not in users.
• The per log unit increase in CRP was associated with a risk for MACE in bDMARD nonusers (HR, 1.16; P = .009) but not in users.
• No interaction was observed between bDMARD use and DAS28-CRP or CRP for the iCVE risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“This may indicate additional bDMARD-specific benefits directly on arterial wall inflammation and atherosclerotic plaque anatomy, stability, and biology, independently of systemic inflammation,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by George Athanasios Karpouzas, MD, The Lundquist Institute, Torrance, California, was published online in RMD Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Patients with a particular interest in RA-associated cardiovascular disease were included, which may have introduced referral bias and affected the generalizability of the findings. Standard definitions were used for selected outcomes; however, differences in the reporting of outcomes may be plausible. Some patients were evaluated prospectively, while others were evaluated retrospectively, leading to differences in surveillance.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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.

Is going sugar free really good advice for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors? 

That’s the question raised by new Cleveland Clinic research, which suggests that consuming erythritol, a sweetener widely found in sugar-free and keto food products, could spur a prothrombotic response. 

In the study, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 10 healthy participants ate 30 grams of erythritol. Thirty minutes later, their blood showed enhanced platelet aggregation and increased markers of platelet responsiveness and activation. 

Specifically, the researchers saw enhanced stimulus-dependent release of serotonin (a marker of platelet dense granules) and CXCL4 (a platelet alpha-granule marker). 

“ With every single person, you see a prothrombotic effect with every single test that we did,” said study author Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. By contrast, participants who ate 30 grams of glucose saw no such effect. 

The erythritol itself does not activate the platelets, Dr. Hazen said, rather it lowers the threshold for triggering a response. This could make someone more prone to clotting, raising heart attack and stroke risk over time.

Though the mechanism is unknown, Dr. Hazen has an idea. 

“There appears to be a receptor on platelets that is recognizing and sensing these sugar alcohols,” Dr. Hazen said, “much in the same way your taste bud for sweet is a receptor for recognizing a glucose or sugar molecule.” 

“We’re very interested in trying to figure out what the receptor is,” Dr. Hazen said, “because I think that then becomes a very interesting potential target for further investigation and study into how this is linked to causing heart disease.”
 

The Past and Future of Erythritol Research

In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration classified erythritol as a “generally recognized as safe” food additive. A sugar alcohol that occurs naturally in foods like melon and grapes, erythritol is also manufactured by fermenting sugars. It’s about 70% as sweet as table sugar. Humans also produce small amounts of erythritol naturally: Our blood cells make it from glucose via the pentose phosphate pathway. 

Previous research from Dr. Hazen’s group linked erythritol to a risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and clotting. 

“Based on their previous study, I think this was a really important study to do in healthy individuals,” said Martha Field, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, who was not involved in the study.

The earlier paper analyzed blood samples from participants with unknown erythritol intake, including some taken before the sweetener, and it was as widespread as it is today. That made disentangling the effects of eating erythritol vs naturally producing it more difficult. 

By showing that eating erythritol raises markers associated with thrombosis, the new paper reinforces the importance of thinking about and developing a deeper understanding of what we put into our bodies. 

“This paper was conducted in healthy individuals — might this be particularly dangerous for individuals who are at increased risk of clotting?” asked Dr. Field. “There are lots of genetic polymorphisms that increase your risk for clotting disorders or your propensity to form thrombosis.” 

Field would like to see similar analyses of xylitol and sorbitol, other sugar alcohols found in sugar-free foods. And she called for more studies on erythritol that look at lower erythritol consumption over longer time periods. 

Registered dietitian nutritionist Valisa E. Hedrick, PhD, agreed: Much more work is needed in this area, particularly in higher-risk groups, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, said Dr. Hedrick, an associate professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, who was not involved in the study. 

“Because this study was conducted in healthy individuals, the impact of a small dose of glucose was negligible, as their body can effectively regulate blood glucose levels,” she said. “Because high blood glucose concentrations have also been shown to increase platelet reactivity, and consequently increase thrombosis potential, individuals who are not able to regulate their blood glucose levels, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, could potentially see a similar effect on the body as erythritol when consuming large amounts of sugar.” 

At the same time, “individuals with diabetes or prediabetes may be more inclined to consume erythritol as an alternative to sugar,” Dr. Hedrick added. “It will be important to design studies that include these individuals to determine if erythritol has an additive adverse effect on cardiac event risk.”
 

Criticism and Impact 

Critics have suggested the 30-gram dose of erythritol ingested by study participants is unrealistic. Dr. Hazen said that it’s not. 

Erythritol is often recommended as a one-to-one sugar replacement. And you could top 30 grams with a few servings of erythritol-sweetened ice cream or soda, Dr. Hazen said. 

“The dose that we used, it’s on the high end, but it’s well within a physiologically relevant level,” he said. 

Still others say the results are only relevant for people with preexisting heart trouble. But Dr. Hazen said they matter for the masses. 

“I think there’s a significant health concern at a population level that this work is underscoring,” he said. 

After all, heart disease risk factors like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking are common and quickly add up. 

“If you look at middle-aged America, most people who experience a heart attack or stroke do not know that they have coronary artery disease, and the first recognition of it is that event,” Dr. Hazen said. 

For now, Dr. Hazen recommends eating real sugar in moderation. He hopes future research will reveal a nonnutritive sweetener that doesn’t activate platelets. 
 

The Bigger Picture

The new research adds yet another piece to the puzzle of whether nonnutritive sweeteners are better than sugar. 

“I think these results are concerning,” said JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. They “ may help explain the surprising results in some observational studies that artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Manson, who was not involved in the new study, has conducted other research linking artificial sweetener use with stroke risk.

In an upcoming randomized clinical study, her team is comparing head-to-head sugar-sweetened beverages, drinks sweetened with calorie-free substitutes, and water to determine which is best for a range of cardiometabolic outcomes. 

“We need more research on this question,” she said, “because these artificial sweeteners are commonly used, and many people are assuming that their health outcomes will be better with the artificial sweeteners than with sugar-sweetened products.”

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

Is going sugar free really good advice for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors? 

That’s the question raised by new Cleveland Clinic research, which suggests that consuming erythritol, a sweetener widely found in sugar-free and keto food products, could spur a prothrombotic response. 

In the study, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 10 healthy participants ate 30 grams of erythritol. Thirty minutes later, their blood showed enhanced platelet aggregation and increased markers of platelet responsiveness and activation. 

Specifically, the researchers saw enhanced stimulus-dependent release of serotonin (a marker of platelet dense granules) and CXCL4 (a platelet alpha-granule marker). 

“ With every single person, you see a prothrombotic effect with every single test that we did,” said study author Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. By contrast, participants who ate 30 grams of glucose saw no such effect. 

The erythritol itself does not activate the platelets, Dr. Hazen said, rather it lowers the threshold for triggering a response. This could make someone more prone to clotting, raising heart attack and stroke risk over time.

Though the mechanism is unknown, Dr. Hazen has an idea. 

“There appears to be a receptor on platelets that is recognizing and sensing these sugar alcohols,” Dr. Hazen said, “much in the same way your taste bud for sweet is a receptor for recognizing a glucose or sugar molecule.” 

“We’re very interested in trying to figure out what the receptor is,” Dr. Hazen said, “because I think that then becomes a very interesting potential target for further investigation and study into how this is linked to causing heart disease.”
 

The Past and Future of Erythritol Research

In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration classified erythritol as a “generally recognized as safe” food additive. A sugar alcohol that occurs naturally in foods like melon and grapes, erythritol is also manufactured by fermenting sugars. It’s about 70% as sweet as table sugar. Humans also produce small amounts of erythritol naturally: Our blood cells make it from glucose via the pentose phosphate pathway. 

Previous research from Dr. Hazen’s group linked erythritol to a risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and clotting. 

“Based on their previous study, I think this was a really important study to do in healthy individuals,” said Martha Field, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, who was not involved in the study.

The earlier paper analyzed blood samples from participants with unknown erythritol intake, including some taken before the sweetener, and it was as widespread as it is today. That made disentangling the effects of eating erythritol vs naturally producing it more difficult. 

By showing that eating erythritol raises markers associated with thrombosis, the new paper reinforces the importance of thinking about and developing a deeper understanding of what we put into our bodies. 

“This paper was conducted in healthy individuals — might this be particularly dangerous for individuals who are at increased risk of clotting?” asked Dr. Field. “There are lots of genetic polymorphisms that increase your risk for clotting disorders or your propensity to form thrombosis.” 

Field would like to see similar analyses of xylitol and sorbitol, other sugar alcohols found in sugar-free foods. And she called for more studies on erythritol that look at lower erythritol consumption over longer time periods. 

Registered dietitian nutritionist Valisa E. Hedrick, PhD, agreed: Much more work is needed in this area, particularly in higher-risk groups, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, said Dr. Hedrick, an associate professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, who was not involved in the study. 

“Because this study was conducted in healthy individuals, the impact of a small dose of glucose was negligible, as their body can effectively regulate blood glucose levels,” she said. “Because high blood glucose concentrations have also been shown to increase platelet reactivity, and consequently increase thrombosis potential, individuals who are not able to regulate their blood glucose levels, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, could potentially see a similar effect on the body as erythritol when consuming large amounts of sugar.” 

At the same time, “individuals with diabetes or prediabetes may be more inclined to consume erythritol as an alternative to sugar,” Dr. Hedrick added. “It will be important to design studies that include these individuals to determine if erythritol has an additive adverse effect on cardiac event risk.”
 

Criticism and Impact 

Critics have suggested the 30-gram dose of erythritol ingested by study participants is unrealistic. Dr. Hazen said that it’s not. 

Erythritol is often recommended as a one-to-one sugar replacement. And you could top 30 grams with a few servings of erythritol-sweetened ice cream or soda, Dr. Hazen said. 

“The dose that we used, it’s on the high end, but it’s well within a physiologically relevant level,” he said. 

Still others say the results are only relevant for people with preexisting heart trouble. But Dr. Hazen said they matter for the masses. 

“I think there’s a significant health concern at a population level that this work is underscoring,” he said. 

After all, heart disease risk factors like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking are common and quickly add up. 

“If you look at middle-aged America, most people who experience a heart attack or stroke do not know that they have coronary artery disease, and the first recognition of it is that event,” Dr. Hazen said. 

For now, Dr. Hazen recommends eating real sugar in moderation. He hopes future research will reveal a nonnutritive sweetener that doesn’t activate platelets. 
 

The Bigger Picture

The new research adds yet another piece to the puzzle of whether nonnutritive sweeteners are better than sugar. 

“I think these results are concerning,” said JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. They “ may help explain the surprising results in some observational studies that artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Manson, who was not involved in the new study, has conducted other research linking artificial sweetener use with stroke risk.

In an upcoming randomized clinical study, her team is comparing head-to-head sugar-sweetened beverages, drinks sweetened with calorie-free substitutes, and water to determine which is best for a range of cardiometabolic outcomes. 

“We need more research on this question,” she said, “because these artificial sweeteners are commonly used, and many people are assuming that their health outcomes will be better with the artificial sweeteners than with sugar-sweetened products.”

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

Is going sugar free really good advice for patients with cardiometabolic risk factors? 

That’s the question raised by new Cleveland Clinic research, which suggests that consuming erythritol, a sweetener widely found in sugar-free and keto food products, could spur a prothrombotic response. 

In the study, published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, 10 healthy participants ate 30 grams of erythritol. Thirty minutes later, their blood showed enhanced platelet aggregation and increased markers of platelet responsiveness and activation. 

Specifically, the researchers saw enhanced stimulus-dependent release of serotonin (a marker of platelet dense granules) and CXCL4 (a platelet alpha-granule marker). 

“ With every single person, you see a prothrombotic effect with every single test that we did,” said study author Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Sciences at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. By contrast, participants who ate 30 grams of glucose saw no such effect. 

The erythritol itself does not activate the platelets, Dr. Hazen said, rather it lowers the threshold for triggering a response. This could make someone more prone to clotting, raising heart attack and stroke risk over time.

Though the mechanism is unknown, Dr. Hazen has an idea. 

“There appears to be a receptor on platelets that is recognizing and sensing these sugar alcohols,” Dr. Hazen said, “much in the same way your taste bud for sweet is a receptor for recognizing a glucose or sugar molecule.” 

“We’re very interested in trying to figure out what the receptor is,” Dr. Hazen said, “because I think that then becomes a very interesting potential target for further investigation and study into how this is linked to causing heart disease.”
 

The Past and Future of Erythritol Research

In 2001, the Food and Drug Administration classified erythritol as a “generally recognized as safe” food additive. A sugar alcohol that occurs naturally in foods like melon and grapes, erythritol is also manufactured by fermenting sugars. It’s about 70% as sweet as table sugar. Humans also produce small amounts of erythritol naturally: Our blood cells make it from glucose via the pentose phosphate pathway. 

Previous research from Dr. Hazen’s group linked erythritol to a risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and clotting. 

“Based on their previous study, I think this was a really important study to do in healthy individuals,” said Martha Field, PhD, assistant professor in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, who was not involved in the study.

The earlier paper analyzed blood samples from participants with unknown erythritol intake, including some taken before the sweetener, and it was as widespread as it is today. That made disentangling the effects of eating erythritol vs naturally producing it more difficult. 

By showing that eating erythritol raises markers associated with thrombosis, the new paper reinforces the importance of thinking about and developing a deeper understanding of what we put into our bodies. 

“This paper was conducted in healthy individuals — might this be particularly dangerous for individuals who are at increased risk of clotting?” asked Dr. Field. “There are lots of genetic polymorphisms that increase your risk for clotting disorders or your propensity to form thrombosis.” 

Field would like to see similar analyses of xylitol and sorbitol, other sugar alcohols found in sugar-free foods. And she called for more studies on erythritol that look at lower erythritol consumption over longer time periods. 

Registered dietitian nutritionist Valisa E. Hedrick, PhD, agreed: Much more work is needed in this area, particularly in higher-risk groups, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, said Dr. Hedrick, an associate professor in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, who was not involved in the study. 

“Because this study was conducted in healthy individuals, the impact of a small dose of glucose was negligible, as their body can effectively regulate blood glucose levels,” she said. “Because high blood glucose concentrations have also been shown to increase platelet reactivity, and consequently increase thrombosis potential, individuals who are not able to regulate their blood glucose levels, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes, could potentially see a similar effect on the body as erythritol when consuming large amounts of sugar.” 

At the same time, “individuals with diabetes or prediabetes may be more inclined to consume erythritol as an alternative to sugar,” Dr. Hedrick added. “It will be important to design studies that include these individuals to determine if erythritol has an additive adverse effect on cardiac event risk.”
 

Criticism and Impact 

Critics have suggested the 30-gram dose of erythritol ingested by study participants is unrealistic. Dr. Hazen said that it’s not. 

Erythritol is often recommended as a one-to-one sugar replacement. And you could top 30 grams with a few servings of erythritol-sweetened ice cream or soda, Dr. Hazen said. 

“The dose that we used, it’s on the high end, but it’s well within a physiologically relevant level,” he said. 

Still others say the results are only relevant for people with preexisting heart trouble. But Dr. Hazen said they matter for the masses. 

“I think there’s a significant health concern at a population level that this work is underscoring,” he said. 

After all, heart disease risk factors like obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking are common and quickly add up. 

“If you look at middle-aged America, most people who experience a heart attack or stroke do not know that they have coronary artery disease, and the first recognition of it is that event,” Dr. Hazen said. 

For now, Dr. Hazen recommends eating real sugar in moderation. He hopes future research will reveal a nonnutritive sweetener that doesn’t activate platelets. 
 

The Bigger Picture

The new research adds yet another piece to the puzzle of whether nonnutritive sweeteners are better than sugar. 

“I think these results are concerning,” said JoAnn E. Manson, MD, chief of the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. They “ may help explain the surprising results in some observational studies that artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Manson, who was not involved in the new study, has conducted other research linking artificial sweetener use with stroke risk.

In an upcoming randomized clinical study, her team is comparing head-to-head sugar-sweetened beverages, drinks sweetened with calorie-free substitutes, and water to determine which is best for a range of cardiometabolic outcomes. 

“We need more research on this question,” she said, “because these artificial sweeteners are commonly used, and many people are assuming that their health outcomes will be better with the artificial sweeteners than with sugar-sweetened products.”

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

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.