Cardiology News

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.

Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.

Unlike a conventional credit card, a medical credit card is used only to pay for medical services.

alexialex/Getty Images

Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.

Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.

The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.

The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.

According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.

Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.

Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.

Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.

Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.

Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.

Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.

Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.

Unlike a conventional credit card, a medical credit card is used only to pay for medical services.

alexialex/Getty Images

Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.

Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.

The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.

The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.

According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.

Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.

Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.

Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.

Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.

Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.

Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Editor’s note: This is Dr. Eastern’s last “Managing Your Practice” column for Dermatology News. After his first column was published in 1986, Dr. Eastern continued writing his column monthly until the mid-1990s, resuming in 2005. In total, he has written over 300 columns on topics relevant to medical practice, ranging from hiring employees, selling and merging practices, complying with OSHA, and avoiding embezzlement, to electronic health records, burnout, medical assistants, negative online reviews, artificial intelligence in the office, and more. In the future, he will continue to provide commentary on practice issues with an occasional guest editorial.

Medicare reimbursement cuts, increasing overhead and staff salaries, and inflation have made running a profitable private practice increasingly challenging, particularly for rural and smaller offices. Medical credit cards are an increasingly popular choice to fill this gap.

Unlike a conventional credit card, a medical credit card is used only to pay for medical services.

alexialex/Getty Images

Traditionally, these cards were used to help cover procedures insurance didn’t cover — such as cosmetic procedures — but over the years, they have been expanded to cover other healthcare charges, mostly for patients who are paying out of pocket due to inadequate insurance or other reasons.

Advantages for physicians include immediate payment from the credit card company and reduced billing and collection costs. Patients are also less likely to delay or defer treatment if they can charge the payment and pay it back in installments.

The first step in offering medical credit cards is signing up with one or more third-party card companies. CareCredit is the most common provider in the medical credit card market. Other vendors include Wells Fargo, AccessOne, Alphaeon Credit, and iCare Financial. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.) A member of your staff signs patients up, and the credit card company checks their credit. If approved, the card company pays you your fee and assumes responsibility for collecting from the patient.

The interest charge on medical credit cards is often deferred for a period of time, typically between 6 and 24 months. If patients pay off the debt within this time, they can avoid paying interest. But, like other credit cards, if they make late payments or have an unpaid balance once the promotional period ends, they may end up with interest and fees totaling 25%-30% or more. It is important to make it very clear to your patients that payments are interest-free only if they are all made on time and within the promotional period.

According to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report released earlier this year, deferred interest medical credit cards or loans were used to pay nearly $23 billion in healthcare expenses from 2018 to 2020. Individuals unable to complete payment during the promotional period paid $1 billion in deferred interest payments during that period.

Despite the growing popularity of medical credit cards among physicians, it is worth noting that some consumer groups view them as predatory financial products, marketed toward people in tough financial situations. A coalition of 60 health advocacy groups has urged the Biden Administration to ban deferred interest medical credit cards. So there is that much more reason to choose candidates for medical credit cards carefully, and to make them fully aware of what obligations they are assuming.

Patients who do not think they can pay off the balance within the interest-free time frame should probably be advised to pursue an alternative payment method, such as using a conventional credit card, taking out a personal or home-equity loan, or borrowing from a retirement savings account. Some physicians are willing to negotiate a reduced fee for patients who agree to pay cash at the time of service.

Those who do choose to apply for a medical credit card should be informed of their options, which can vary considerably depending on the product and the third-party vendor. Some medical credit products can be used only for elective procedures, but some can be used more broadly for various medical expenses. Check to make sure that each patient’s financing option can be used for his or her desired medical service.

Some payment products can only be used at specific practices or groups, while others can be used at a variety of medical offices and hospitals. If a patient arrives with a medical credit card already in hand, confirm that it is one that your office accepts.

Interest rates generally vary with each card and vendor. Make patients aware of when interest rates start accruing and if the plan offers a fixed or variable APR, or if it charges compounding interest. Confirm if there is a deferred interest option, and if so, for how long.

Different medical credit products also have varying fees and payment schedules. See that each patient reads the terms of the agreement to understand when interest may start to accrue or change, as well as when certain fees may apply. Understanding when the payments are due will help them avoid additional fees, including late fees. Some medical payment plans may also have administrative or processing fees. If so, patients should be made aware of them.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, New Jersey. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.

What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.

We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.

For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.

Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.

The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.

The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.

The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.

The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.

When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.

When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.

When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.

When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.

When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.

Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.

This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.

In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.

Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.

The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.

In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.

For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.

I’ll leave you with the thought that women and men are different. We have different underlying diseases, different onset for the development of heart failure, and different ejection fractions in instances when heart failure develops. We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.

Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.

What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.

We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.

For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.

Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.

The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.

The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.

The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.

The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.

When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.

When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.

When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.

When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.

When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.

Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.

This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.

In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.

Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.

The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.

In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.

For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.

I’ll leave you with the thought that women and men are different. We have different underlying diseases, different onset for the development of heart failure, and different ejection fractions in instances when heart failure develops. We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.

Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.

What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.

We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.

For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.

Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.

The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.

The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.

The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.

The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.

When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.

When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.

When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.

When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.

When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.

Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.

This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.

In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.

Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.

The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.

In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.

For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.

I’ll leave you with the thought that women and men are different. We have different underlying diseases, different onset for the development of heart failure, and different ejection fractions in instances when heart failure develops. We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.

Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — A Mediterranean diet with extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) significantly reduced the risk for tachyarrhythmia recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in patients with paroxysmal disease, but the diet had less of an impact on patients with persistent AF, a new study showed.

“An intervention with the Mediterranean diet with EVOO produced a nonsignificant reduction in any atrial tachycardia in a selected population after undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, but this intervention produced a significant reduction in any atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with paroxysmal AF,” said Maria Teresa Barrio-Lopez, MD, PhD, an electrophysiologist at University Hospital HM Monteprincipe in Madrid, Spain, who presented results from the PREDIMAR trial at the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) 2024 annual meeting.

The PREDIMAR study enrolled 720 patients from the larger PREDIMED study, which showed that patients without AF at enrollment and who followed a Mediterranean diet enriched with EVOO had a 38% lower rate of incidental AF than control individuals.

PREDIMAR evaluated the impact of the diet on arrhythmia recurrence in patients after ablation. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the dietary intervention group or the control group.
 

PREDIMAR Study Results

The overall difference in the rate of AF recurrence in the 3-18 months after ablation between the dietary intervention and control groups was nonsignificant (34.8% vs 37.5%).

However, among the 431 patients with paroxysmal AF, 25.2% in the diet group and 34.7% in the control group had no tachyarrhythmia recurrence, which translates into a 31% lower risk in the diet group.

In this study, the diet was rich in fish, nuts, fruits, and vegetables and was complemented with EVOO. Participants were also permitted moderate wine consumption.

The intervention involved dietitians who remotely followed patients and made periodic telephone calls to encourage them to stay on the diet. Participants had weight and body measurements taken at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months and underwent an ECG at 6, 12, and 18 months. Labs were obtained at baseline and at 12 months. Participants were also given educational materials throughout the intervention.

Average scores, based on a scale of 0-13, excluding an item for wine intake, were 7.8 in the diet group and 7.2 in the control group.

Daily average alcohol intake was higher in the diet group than in the control group (9.8 vs 8.2 g), but “the weight of the patient during the study didn’t change in any group,” Dr. Barrio-Lopez reported.

Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. About 60% were taking antiarrhythmic drugs, and about 84% were taking anticoagulants.
 

‘A Tour de Force’

PREDIMAR was “really a tour de force,” Christine Albert, MD, MPH, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said during a commentary presented at HRS. “We talk about how we’re going to do these dietary interventions and weight loss and all the risk-factor reduction, and they pulled it off with 700 individuals and also did it in a way that was very novel.”

This is the first large-scale dietary intervention trial of patients with AF. However, Dr. Albert noted later in an interview, the Mediterranean diet poses potential challenges for some people with AF.

“The Mediterranean diet recommends that people drink wine, but then there’s clear evidence that abstinence from alcohol actually reduces recurrences of atrial fibrillation, so even though there are a lot of things about the Mediterranean diet that are probably healthy and good for atrial fibrillation, that aspect of it might be working against the patient,” she explained.

The finding that patients in the Mediterranean diet group experienced no significant weight loss could be counterintuitive when it comes to preventing AF. But “you could adapt the diet for AF,” Dr. Albert said. You could “leave out the wine and focus more on weight loss if the patient is obese because those are also the pillars of what we’ve learned for patients with atrial fibrillation.”

Making weight loss a key component of the study could be significant for the American population. “At least in the United States, that’s a huge part of the risk factors for atrial fibrillation after ablation,” she said.

The remote follow-up component of the PREDIMAR study is also intriguing. “I think what’s most exciting about what they did is, they showed they can do all these things remotely,” Dr. Albert added.

Dr. Barrio-Lopez had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Albert disclosed relationships with Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, St. Jude Medical, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Element Science.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — A Mediterranean diet with extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) significantly reduced the risk for tachyarrhythmia recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in patients with paroxysmal disease, but the diet had less of an impact on patients with persistent AF, a new study showed.

“An intervention with the Mediterranean diet with EVOO produced a nonsignificant reduction in any atrial tachycardia in a selected population after undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, but this intervention produced a significant reduction in any atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with paroxysmal AF,” said Maria Teresa Barrio-Lopez, MD, PhD, an electrophysiologist at University Hospital HM Monteprincipe in Madrid, Spain, who presented results from the PREDIMAR trial at the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) 2024 annual meeting.

The PREDIMAR study enrolled 720 patients from the larger PREDIMED study, which showed that patients without AF at enrollment and who followed a Mediterranean diet enriched with EVOO had a 38% lower rate of incidental AF than control individuals.

PREDIMAR evaluated the impact of the diet on arrhythmia recurrence in patients after ablation. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the dietary intervention group or the control group.
 

PREDIMAR Study Results

The overall difference in the rate of AF recurrence in the 3-18 months after ablation between the dietary intervention and control groups was nonsignificant (34.8% vs 37.5%).

However, among the 431 patients with paroxysmal AF, 25.2% in the diet group and 34.7% in the control group had no tachyarrhythmia recurrence, which translates into a 31% lower risk in the diet group.

In this study, the diet was rich in fish, nuts, fruits, and vegetables and was complemented with EVOO. Participants were also permitted moderate wine consumption.

The intervention involved dietitians who remotely followed patients and made periodic telephone calls to encourage them to stay on the diet. Participants had weight and body measurements taken at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months and underwent an ECG at 6, 12, and 18 months. Labs were obtained at baseline and at 12 months. Participants were also given educational materials throughout the intervention.

Average scores, based on a scale of 0-13, excluding an item for wine intake, were 7.8 in the diet group and 7.2 in the control group.

Daily average alcohol intake was higher in the diet group than in the control group (9.8 vs 8.2 g), but “the weight of the patient during the study didn’t change in any group,” Dr. Barrio-Lopez reported.

Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. About 60% were taking antiarrhythmic drugs, and about 84% were taking anticoagulants.
 

‘A Tour de Force’

PREDIMAR was “really a tour de force,” Christine Albert, MD, MPH, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said during a commentary presented at HRS. “We talk about how we’re going to do these dietary interventions and weight loss and all the risk-factor reduction, and they pulled it off with 700 individuals and also did it in a way that was very novel.”

This is the first large-scale dietary intervention trial of patients with AF. However, Dr. Albert noted later in an interview, the Mediterranean diet poses potential challenges for some people with AF.

“The Mediterranean diet recommends that people drink wine, but then there’s clear evidence that abstinence from alcohol actually reduces recurrences of atrial fibrillation, so even though there are a lot of things about the Mediterranean diet that are probably healthy and good for atrial fibrillation, that aspect of it might be working against the patient,” she explained.

The finding that patients in the Mediterranean diet group experienced no significant weight loss could be counterintuitive when it comes to preventing AF. But “you could adapt the diet for AF,” Dr. Albert said. You could “leave out the wine and focus more on weight loss if the patient is obese because those are also the pillars of what we’ve learned for patients with atrial fibrillation.”

Making weight loss a key component of the study could be significant for the American population. “At least in the United States, that’s a huge part of the risk factors for atrial fibrillation after ablation,” she said.

The remote follow-up component of the PREDIMAR study is also intriguing. “I think what’s most exciting about what they did is, they showed they can do all these things remotely,” Dr. Albert added.

Dr. Barrio-Lopez had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Albert disclosed relationships with Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, St. Jude Medical, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Element Science.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — A Mediterranean diet with extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) significantly reduced the risk for tachyarrhythmia recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in patients with paroxysmal disease, but the diet had less of an impact on patients with persistent AF, a new study showed.

“An intervention with the Mediterranean diet with EVOO produced a nonsignificant reduction in any atrial tachycardia in a selected population after undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation, but this intervention produced a significant reduction in any atrial tachyarrhythmias in patients with paroxysmal AF,” said Maria Teresa Barrio-Lopez, MD, PhD, an electrophysiologist at University Hospital HM Monteprincipe in Madrid, Spain, who presented results from the PREDIMAR trial at the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) 2024 annual meeting.

The PREDIMAR study enrolled 720 patients from the larger PREDIMED study, which showed that patients without AF at enrollment and who followed a Mediterranean diet enriched with EVOO had a 38% lower rate of incidental AF than control individuals.

PREDIMAR evaluated the impact of the diet on arrhythmia recurrence in patients after ablation. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either the dietary intervention group or the control group.
 

PREDIMAR Study Results

The overall difference in the rate of AF recurrence in the 3-18 months after ablation between the dietary intervention and control groups was nonsignificant (34.8% vs 37.5%).

However, among the 431 patients with paroxysmal AF, 25.2% in the diet group and 34.7% in the control group had no tachyarrhythmia recurrence, which translates into a 31% lower risk in the diet group.

In this study, the diet was rich in fish, nuts, fruits, and vegetables and was complemented with EVOO. Participants were also permitted moderate wine consumption.

The intervention involved dietitians who remotely followed patients and made periodic telephone calls to encourage them to stay on the diet. Participants had weight and body measurements taken at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 18 months and underwent an ECG at 6, 12, and 18 months. Labs were obtained at baseline and at 12 months. Participants were also given educational materials throughout the intervention.

Average scores, based on a scale of 0-13, excluding an item for wine intake, were 7.8 in the diet group and 7.2 in the control group.

Daily average alcohol intake was higher in the diet group than in the control group (9.8 vs 8.2 g), but “the weight of the patient during the study didn’t change in any group,” Dr. Barrio-Lopez reported.

Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. About 60% were taking antiarrhythmic drugs, and about 84% were taking anticoagulants.
 

‘A Tour de Force’

PREDIMAR was “really a tour de force,” Christine Albert, MD, MPH, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, said during a commentary presented at HRS. “We talk about how we’re going to do these dietary interventions and weight loss and all the risk-factor reduction, and they pulled it off with 700 individuals and also did it in a way that was very novel.”

This is the first large-scale dietary intervention trial of patients with AF. However, Dr. Albert noted later in an interview, the Mediterranean diet poses potential challenges for some people with AF.

“The Mediterranean diet recommends that people drink wine, but then there’s clear evidence that abstinence from alcohol actually reduces recurrences of atrial fibrillation, so even though there are a lot of things about the Mediterranean diet that are probably healthy and good for atrial fibrillation, that aspect of it might be working against the patient,” she explained.

The finding that patients in the Mediterranean diet group experienced no significant weight loss could be counterintuitive when it comes to preventing AF. But “you could adapt the diet for AF,” Dr. Albert said. You could “leave out the wine and focus more on weight loss if the patient is obese because those are also the pillars of what we’ve learned for patients with atrial fibrillation.”

Making weight loss a key component of the study could be significant for the American population. “At least in the United States, that’s a huge part of the risk factors for atrial fibrillation after ablation,” she said.

The remote follow-up component of the PREDIMAR study is also intriguing. “I think what’s most exciting about what they did is, they showed they can do all these things remotely,” Dr. Albert added.

Dr. Barrio-Lopez had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Albert disclosed relationships with Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, St. Jude Medical, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Element Science.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

Dr. Redfield

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

Dr. Redfield

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

WASHINGTON – Women with autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) may face increased risks for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, according to a study presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

In particular, women with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) appear to have higher risks than women without AIH or PBC. Those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) don’t seem to have increased risks.

“We know that cardiovascular disease remains the number one cause of death, but the mortality rate for women over the last decade has plateaued, whereas in men it’s actually declining due to interventions,” said lead author Rachel Redfield, MD, a transplant hepatology fellow at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“This is likely because we don’t have adequate risk stratification, especially for women,” she said. “We know that immune-mediated diseases — such as rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis — carry a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, but there’s not a lot of data on our autoimmune liver disease patients.”

Dr. Redfield

Although being a female can offer protection against some CVD risks, the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) 10-year risk score calculator recommended by the American College of Cardiology doesn’t include chronic inflammatory diseases associated with increased CVD risk, including AILD.

Dr. Redfield and colleagues conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with AIH, PBC, and PSC from 1999-2019. Using TriNetX data, the researchers looked at women with AILD who also had diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, as well as a control group of men and women with these same disorders, excluding those who used biologics, immune modulators, and steroids or had other autoimmune disorders.

The research team used 1:1 propensity-score matching for women in the study group and in the control group based on age, race, ethnicity, ASCVD risk factors, and tobacco use. Women in the study group and men in the control group were matched for age, race, ethnicity, and tobacco use.

The primary outcome was summative cardiovascular risk, including unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, presence of coronary angioplasty implant, coronary artery bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, and cerebral infarction.

Overall, women with AIH had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without AIH, at 25.4% versus 20.6% (P = .0007).

Specifically, women with PBC had a significantly higher cardiovascular risk compared to women without PBC, at 27.05% versus 20.9% (P < .0001).

There wasn’t a significant difference in risk between women with and without PSC, at 27.5% versus 21.8% (P = .27).

When compared to men without disease, women with AIH didn’t have a statistically significant higher risk, at 25.3% versus 24.2% (P = .44). Similarly, there didn’t appear to be a significant difference between women with PBC and men without PBC, at 26.9% versus 25.9% (P = .52), or between women with PSC and men without PSC, at 27.7% versus 26.2% (P = .78).

Dr. Redfield and colleagues then compared the ASCVD-calculated risk versus database risk, finding that in each group of women with AILD — including AIH, PBC, and PSC — the ASCVD-calculated risk was around 11%, compared with database risk scores of 25% for AIH, 27% for PBC, and 28% for PSC. These database risks appeared similar to both the ASCVD and database risk percentages for men.

“So potentially there’s an oversight in women with any kind of inflammatory disease, but specifically here, autoimmune liver diseases,” she said. “We really need to enhance our risk assessment strategies to take into account their risk and optimize patient outcomes.”

Dr. Redfield noted the limitations with using TriNetX data, including coding consistency among providers and healthcare organizations, unknown patient follow-up dates, and the inability to capture various inflammatory disease phenotypes, such as autoimmune hepatitis with multiple flares, which may be associated with higher cardiovascular risks.

As an attendee of the DDW session, Kenneth Kelson, MD, a gastroenterologist with Fremont Medical Group and Washington Hospital Healthcare System in Fremont, California, noted the importance of investigating the effects of different types of statins in these patients. Although the research team looked at top-level differences among statin users, finding that women with AILD were more likely to be on a statin, they didn’t incorporate statin therapy in the propensity-score matching model.

“Lipid-soluble statins are known to cause more liver trouble, even though it’s pretty low,” Dr. Kelson said. “Whereas the water-soluble statins have a lower incidence of liver issues.”

Dr. Redfield and Dr. Kelson reported no relevant disclosures.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — Patients who have had a stroke are thought to be at a higher risk for another one, but oral anticoagulation with edoxaban led to no discernible reduction in the risk for a second stroke, and the risk for major bleeding was more than quadruple the risk with no anticoagulation, a subanalysis of a major European trial has shown.

“There is no interaction between prior stroke or TIA [transient ischemic attack] and the treatment effect, and this is true for the primary outcome and the safety outcome,” Paulus Kirchoff, MD, director of cardiology at the University Heart and Vascular Center in Hamburg, Germany, said during his presentation of a subanalysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) 2024. However, “there is a signal for more safety events in patients randomized to anticoagulation with a prior stroke.”

The subanalysis involved 253 patients who had had a stroke or TIA and who had device-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) from the overall NOAH-AFNET 6 population of 2536 patients, which enrolled patients 65 years and older with at least one additional CHA2DS-VASc risk factor and patients 75 years and older with device-detected subclinical AF episodes of at least 6 minutes. Patients were randomized to either edoxaban or no anticoagulation, but 53.9% of the no-anticoagulation group was taking aspirin at trial enrollment. Anticoagulation with edoxaban was shown to have no significant impact on stroke rates or other cardiovascular outcomes.
 

Subanalysis Results

In the subanalysis, a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death — the primary outcome — was similar in the edoxaban and no-anticoagulation groups (14/122 patients [11.5%] vs 16/131 patients [12.2%]; 5.7% vs 6.3% per patient-year).

The rate of recurrent stroke was also similar in the edoxaban and no-anticoagulation groups (4 of 122 patients [3.3%] vs 6 of 131 patients [4.6%]; 1.6% vs 2.3% per patient-year). And there were eight cardiovascular deaths in each group.

However, edoxaban patients had significantly higher rates of major bleeding.

“This is a subanalysis, so what we see in terms of the number of patients with events is not powered for a definitive answer, but we do see that there were 10 major bleeds in the group of patients with a prior stroke or TIA in NOAH,” Dr. Kirchoff reported. “Eight of those 10 major bleeds occurred in patients randomized to edoxaban.”

Results from the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial have been compared with those from the ARTESiA trial, which compared apixaban anticoagulation with aspirin in patients with subclinical AF and was also presented at HRS 2024. ARTESiA showed that apixaban significantly lowered the risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

“In ARTESiA, everyone was on aspirin when they were randomized to no anticoagulation; in NOAH, only about half were on aspirin,” Dr. Kirchoff said.

Both studies had similar outcomes for cardiovascular death in the anticoagulation and no-anticoagulation groups. “It’s not significant; it may be chance, but it’s definitely not the reduction in death that we have seen in the anticoagulant trials,” Dr. Kirchoff said. “When you look at the meta-analyses of the early anticoagulation trials, there’s a one third reduction in death, and here we’re talking about a smaller reduction.”

This research points to a need for a better way to evaluate stroke risk. “We need new markers,” Dr. Kirchoff said. “Some of them may be in the blood or imaging, genetics maybe, and one thing that really emerges from my perspective is that we now have the first evidence to suggest that patients with a very low atrial fibrillation burden have a low stroke rate.”

More research is needed to better understand AF characteristics and stroke risk, he said.
 

AF Care Enters a ‘Gray Zone’

The NOAH-AFNET 6 results, coupled with those from ARTESiA, are changing the paradigm for anticoagulation in patients with stroke, said Taya Glotzer, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, New Jersey, who compiled her own analysis of the studies’ outcomes.

“In ARTESiA, the stroke reduction was only 0.44% a year, with a number needed to treat of 250,” she said. “In the NOAH-AFNET 6 main trial, the stroke reduction was 0.2%, with the number needed to treat of 500, and in the NOAH prior stroke patients, there was a 0.7% reduction, with a number needed to treat of 143.”

None of these trials would meet the standard for a class 1 recommendation for anticoagulation with a reduction of even 1%-2% per year, she noted, but they do show that the stroke rate “is very, very low” in prior patients with stroke.

“Prior to 2024, we knew what was black and white; we knew who to anticoagulate and who not to anticoagulate. And now we are in a gray zone, trying to balance the risk of stroke and bleeding. We have to individualize or hope for substudies, perhaps using the CHA2DS-VASc score or other information about the left atrium, to help us make decisions in these patients. It’s not just going to be black and white,” she said.

Dr. Kirchoff had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Glotzer disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and MediaSphere Medical.

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

BOSTON — Patients who have had a stroke are thought to be at a higher risk for another one, but oral anticoagulation with edoxaban led to no discernible reduction in the risk for a second stroke, and the risk for major bleeding was more than quadruple the risk with no anticoagulation, a subanalysis of a major European trial has shown.

“There is no interaction between prior stroke or TIA [transient ischemic attack] and the treatment effect, and this is true for the primary outcome and the safety outcome,” Paulus Kirchoff, MD, director of cardiology at the University Heart and Vascular Center in Hamburg, Germany, said during his presentation of a subanalysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) 2024. However, “there is a signal for more safety events in patients randomized to anticoagulation with a prior stroke.”

The subanalysis involved 253 patients who had had a stroke or TIA and who had device-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) from the overall NOAH-AFNET 6 population of 2536 patients, which enrolled patients 65 years and older with at least one additional CHA2DS-VASc risk factor and patients 75 years and older with device-detected subclinical AF episodes of at least 6 minutes. Patients were randomized to either edoxaban or no anticoagulation, but 53.9% of the no-anticoagulation group was taking aspirin at trial enrollment. Anticoagulation with edoxaban was shown to have no significant impact on stroke rates or other cardiovascular outcomes.
 

Subanalysis Results

In the subanalysis, a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death — the primary outcome — was similar in the edoxaban and no-anticoagulation groups (14/122 patients [11.5%] vs 16/131 patients [12.2%]; 5.7% vs 6.3% per patient-year).

The rate of recurrent stroke was also similar in the edoxaban and no-anticoagulation groups (4 of 122 patients [3.3%] vs 6 of 131 patients [4.6%]; 1.6% vs 2.3% per patient-year). And there were eight cardiovascular deaths in each group.

However, edoxaban patients had significantly higher rates of major bleeding.

“This is a subanalysis, so what we see in terms of the number of patients with events is not powered for a definitive answer, but we do see that there were 10 major bleeds in the group of patients with a prior stroke or TIA in NOAH,” Dr. Kirchoff reported. “Eight of those 10 major bleeds occurred in patients randomized to edoxaban.”

Results from the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial have been compared with those from the ARTESiA trial, which compared apixaban anticoagulation with aspirin in patients with subclinical AF and was also presented at HRS 2024. ARTESiA showed that apixaban significantly lowered the risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

“In ARTESiA, everyone was on aspirin when they were randomized to no anticoagulation; in NOAH, only about half were on aspirin,” Dr. Kirchoff said.

Both studies had similar outcomes for cardiovascular death in the anticoagulation and no-anticoagulation groups. “It’s not significant; it may be chance, but it’s definitely not the reduction in death that we have seen in the anticoagulant trials,” Dr. Kirchoff said. “When you look at the meta-analyses of the early anticoagulation trials, there’s a one third reduction in death, and here we’re talking about a smaller reduction.”

This research points to a need for a better way to evaluate stroke risk. “We need new markers,” Dr. Kirchoff said. “Some of them may be in the blood or imaging, genetics maybe, and one thing that really emerges from my perspective is that we now have the first evidence to suggest that patients with a very low atrial fibrillation burden have a low stroke rate.”

More research is needed to better understand AF characteristics and stroke risk, he said.
 

AF Care Enters a ‘Gray Zone’

The NOAH-AFNET 6 results, coupled with those from ARTESiA, are changing the paradigm for anticoagulation in patients with stroke, said Taya Glotzer, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, New Jersey, who compiled her own analysis of the studies’ outcomes.

“In ARTESiA, the stroke reduction was only 0.44% a year, with a number needed to treat of 250,” she said. “In the NOAH-AFNET 6 main trial, the stroke reduction was 0.2%, with the number needed to treat of 500, and in the NOAH prior stroke patients, there was a 0.7% reduction, with a number needed to treat of 143.”

None of these trials would meet the standard for a class 1 recommendation for anticoagulation with a reduction of even 1%-2% per year, she noted, but they do show that the stroke rate “is very, very low” in prior patients with stroke.

“Prior to 2024, we knew what was black and white; we knew who to anticoagulate and who not to anticoagulate. And now we are in a gray zone, trying to balance the risk of stroke and bleeding. We have to individualize or hope for substudies, perhaps using the CHA2DS-VASc score or other information about the left atrium, to help us make decisions in these patients. It’s not just going to be black and white,” she said.

Dr. Kirchoff had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Glotzer disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and MediaSphere Medical.

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

BOSTON — Patients who have had a stroke are thought to be at a higher risk for another one, but oral anticoagulation with edoxaban led to no discernible reduction in the risk for a second stroke, and the risk for major bleeding was more than quadruple the risk with no anticoagulation, a subanalysis of a major European trial has shown.

“There is no interaction between prior stroke or TIA [transient ischemic attack] and the treatment effect, and this is true for the primary outcome and the safety outcome,” Paulus Kirchoff, MD, director of cardiology at the University Heart and Vascular Center in Hamburg, Germany, said during his presentation of a subanalysis of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial at the annual meeting of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) 2024. However, “there is a signal for more safety events in patients randomized to anticoagulation with a prior stroke.”

The subanalysis involved 253 patients who had had a stroke or TIA and who had device-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) from the overall NOAH-AFNET 6 population of 2536 patients, which enrolled patients 65 years and older with at least one additional CHA2DS-VASc risk factor and patients 75 years and older with device-detected subclinical AF episodes of at least 6 minutes. Patients were randomized to either edoxaban or no anticoagulation, but 53.9% of the no-anticoagulation group was taking aspirin at trial enrollment. Anticoagulation with edoxaban was shown to have no significant impact on stroke rates or other cardiovascular outcomes.
 

Subanalysis Results

In the subanalysis, a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death — the primary outcome — was similar in the edoxaban and no-anticoagulation groups (14/122 patients [11.5%] vs 16/131 patients [12.2%]; 5.7% vs 6.3% per patient-year).

The rate of recurrent stroke was also similar in the edoxaban and no-anticoagulation groups (4 of 122 patients [3.3%] vs 6 of 131 patients [4.6%]; 1.6% vs 2.3% per patient-year). And there were eight cardiovascular deaths in each group.

However, edoxaban patients had significantly higher rates of major bleeding.

“This is a subanalysis, so what we see in terms of the number of patients with events is not powered for a definitive answer, but we do see that there were 10 major bleeds in the group of patients with a prior stroke or TIA in NOAH,” Dr. Kirchoff reported. “Eight of those 10 major bleeds occurred in patients randomized to edoxaban.”

Results from the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial have been compared with those from the ARTESiA trial, which compared apixaban anticoagulation with aspirin in patients with subclinical AF and was also presented at HRS 2024. ARTESiA showed that apixaban significantly lowered the risk for stroke and systemic embolism.

“In ARTESiA, everyone was on aspirin when they were randomized to no anticoagulation; in NOAH, only about half were on aspirin,” Dr. Kirchoff said.

Both studies had similar outcomes for cardiovascular death in the anticoagulation and no-anticoagulation groups. “It’s not significant; it may be chance, but it’s definitely not the reduction in death that we have seen in the anticoagulant trials,” Dr. Kirchoff said. “When you look at the meta-analyses of the early anticoagulation trials, there’s a one third reduction in death, and here we’re talking about a smaller reduction.”

This research points to a need for a better way to evaluate stroke risk. “We need new markers,” Dr. Kirchoff said. “Some of them may be in the blood or imaging, genetics maybe, and one thing that really emerges from my perspective is that we now have the first evidence to suggest that patients with a very low atrial fibrillation burden have a low stroke rate.”

More research is needed to better understand AF characteristics and stroke risk, he said.
 

AF Care Enters a ‘Gray Zone’

The NOAH-AFNET 6 results, coupled with those from ARTESiA, are changing the paradigm for anticoagulation in patients with stroke, said Taya Glotzer, MD, an electrophysiologist at the Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, New Jersey, who compiled her own analysis of the studies’ outcomes.

“In ARTESiA, the stroke reduction was only 0.44% a year, with a number needed to treat of 250,” she said. “In the NOAH-AFNET 6 main trial, the stroke reduction was 0.2%, with the number needed to treat of 500, and in the NOAH prior stroke patients, there was a 0.7% reduction, with a number needed to treat of 143.”

None of these trials would meet the standard for a class 1 recommendation for anticoagulation with a reduction of even 1%-2% per year, she noted, but they do show that the stroke rate “is very, very low” in prior patients with stroke.

“Prior to 2024, we knew what was black and white; we knew who to anticoagulate and who not to anticoagulate. And now we are in a gray zone, trying to balance the risk of stroke and bleeding. We have to individualize or hope for substudies, perhaps using the CHA2DS-VASc score or other information about the left atrium, to help us make decisions in these patients. It’s not just going to be black and white,” she said.

Dr. Kirchoff had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Glotzer disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and MediaSphere Medical.

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

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most doctors mind their manners. But surgeons are the most likely to be reported for unprofessional behavior, while physicians practicing in pediatric settings are the least likely, according to a recent study of more than 35,000 physicians.

The research, published on June 6 in JAMA Network Open, found that fewer than 10% of physicians were reported by their coworkers for at least one instance of unprofessional behavior, and only 1% showed a pattern of such reports.

Data were gathered from the Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy’s (CPPA’s) Coworker Observation Reporting System (CORS) program, a national collaborative in which 193 participating hospitals and practice sites file safety-event reports involving medical workers’ unprofessional behaviors. An algorithm that weights CORS reports based on recency and severity was used to analyze the data. The study was spearheaded by William O. Cooper, MD, MPH, director of the CPPA at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.

The retrospective cohort study included deidentified data on credentialed physicians, not including residents or fellows, who practiced at a CORS site between 2018 and 2022.
 

Why Surgeons?

The authors speculated that the reason surgeons were reported for unprofessional behavior more often than their colleagues in nonsurgical specialties was because surgery is a more stressful environment than other specialties and requires more teamwork, resulting in more interactions during high-stakes events.

Daniel Katz, MD, professor and vice chair of education for the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, added that part of the problem is that surgeons are expected to perform at very high levels all the time.

“When things that are outside the control of the surgeon don’t go well,” Dr. Katz said, “that can lead to increased frustration and negative emotions, which will then bring out these kinds of behaviors.”
 

Types of Unprofessional Behaviors

The most common out-of-bounds behaviors reported involved disrespectful communication or lack of professional responsibility. In one example, a physician called a coworker a “bossy cow” when the coworker reminded the physician of the need to do a timeout before beginning a bronchoscopy.

In another case involving professional responsibility, a coworker asked a physician if the team should wait for a disoriented patient’s spouse to arrive. The doctor’s response: “We’ll be here all night if we do that. If you won’t sign as a witness, I’ll get someone else who will.”

The least common reports involved unprofessionalism related to medical care or professional integrity. One cited a physician removing a Foley catheter without wearing gloves and having visible urine on his hands and not washing them before touching other things in the room. In a reported lapse of professional integrity, a physician billed at level five after spending only 4 minutes with a patient.
 

Impact of Unprofessional Behavior

Unprofessional behavior among physicians is more than just unpleasant. It can threaten the functioning of teams and increase patient complications. In addition, individuals who model unprofessional behaviors are associated with increased malpractice claims, the study’s authors wrote.

Dr. Katz agreed that unprofessional behavior is damaging to both patients and the profession as a whole.

However, this doesn’t happen because some doctors are bad, he said. Physicians today are working in a pressure cooker. The current healthcare environment, with its increased administrative burdens, lack of staffing, and other problems, has increased the overall level of stress and led to burnout among healthcare personnel.

“You have to fix the system to create a working environment that doesn’t cause somebody to explode,” Dr. Katz said.

The goal of the CORS program and this study, Dr. Cooper said, is to help physicians better weather these stresses.
 

Study Limitations

The authors noted some weaknesses in the study. Some unprofessional behavior may go unreported because of fear of retaliation or for other reasons victims or witnesses did not feel safe to report their colleagues. Also, reports were not evaluated to ensure the truth of the accusations. The records reviewed did not include the gender of the physician, though the researchers pointed out that previous studies have shown that women are less likely than men to receive CORS reports.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

Among stroke survivors with diabetes or obesity, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduced secondary stroke risk by up to 16%, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis. With benefits across administration routes, dosing regimens, type 2 diabetes status, and total and nonfatal strokes, the findings could improve GLP-1 RA implementation by stroke specialists in patients with stroke history and concurrent type 2 diabetes or obesity, authors said. The study was published online in the International Journal of Stoke.

Extending Longevity

Agents including GLP-1 RAs that have been found to reduce cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes and patients who are overweight or obese also reduce risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke who are overweight, obese, or have metabolic disease, said American Heart Association (AHA) Chief Clinical Science Officer Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, who was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

“Stroke is a leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of serious long-term disability,” he added, “so medications that help to reduce that risk can play an important role in improving overall health and well-being and hopefully reducing premature mortality.”

Investigators Anastasia Adamou, MD, an internal medicine resident at AHEPA University Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, and colleagues searched MEDLINE and Scopus for cardiovascular outcome trials involving adults randomly assigned to GLP-1 RAs or placebo through November 2023, ultimately analyzing 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Among 60,380 participants in the nine studies that assessed total strokes, 2.5% of the GLP-1 RA group experienced strokes during follow-up, versus 3% in the placebo group (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.93). Regarding secondary outcomes, the GLP-1 RA group showed a significantly lower rate of nonfatal strokes versus patients on placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). Conversely, investigators observed no significant risk difference among the groups regarding fatal strokes, probably due to the low rate of events — 0.3% and 0.4% for treated and untreated patients, respectively.

Subgroup analyses revealed no interaction between dosing frequency and total, nonfatal, or fatal strokes. The investigators observed no difference in nonfatal strokes among participants by type 2 diabetes status and medication administration route (oral versus subcutaneous).

“The oral administration route could provide the advantage of lower local ecchymoses and allergic reactions due to subcutaneous infusions,” Dr. Adamou said in an interview. But because oral administration demands daily intake, she added, treatment adherence might be affected. “For this reason, our team performed another subgroup analysis to compare the once-a-day to the once-a-month administration. No interaction effect was again presented between the two subgroups. This outcome allows for personalization of the administration method for each patient.”

Addressing Underutilization

Despite more than 2 decades of widespread use and well-established effects on body weight, HbA1c, and cardiovascular risk, GLP-1 RAs remain underutilized, authors wrote. This is especially true in primary care, noted one study published in Clinical Diabetes.

“GLP-1 RAs have been used for many years to treat diabetic patients,” said Dr. Adamou. But because their impact on cardiovascular health regardless of diabetic status is only recently known, she said, physicians are exercising caution when prescribing this medication to patients without diabetes. “This is why more studies need to be available, especially RCTs.”

Most neurologists traditionally have left management of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic disorders to primary care doctors, said Dr. Elkind. “However, these medications are increasingly important to vascular risk reduction and should be considered part of the stroke specialist’s armamentarium.”

Vascular neurologists can play an important role in managing metabolic disease and obesity by recommending GLP-1 RAs for patients with a history of stroke, or by initiating these medications themselves, Dr. Elkind said. “These drugs are likely to become an important part of stroke patients’ medication regimens, along with antithrombotic agents, blood pressure control, and statins. Neurologists are well-positioned to educate other physicians about the important connections among brain, heart, and metabolic health.”

To that end, he said, the AHA will update guidelines for both primary and secondary stroke prevention as warranted by evidence supporting GLP-1 RAs and other medications that could impact stroke risk in type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders. However, no guidelines concerning use of GLP-1 RAs for secondary stroke prevention in obesity exist. Here, said Dr. Elkind, the AHA will continue building on its innovative Cardiovascular-Kidney Metabolic Health program, which includes clinical suggestions and may include more formal clinical practice guidelines as the evidence evolves.

Among the main drivers of the initiative, he said, is the recognition that cardiovascular disease — including stroke — is the major cause of death and morbidity among patients with obesity, type 2 diabetes, and metabolic disorders. “Stroke should be considered an important part of overall cardiovascular risk, and the findings that these drugs can help to reduce the risk of stroke specifically is an important additional reason for their use.”

Dr. Elkind and Dr. Adamou reported no conflicting interests. The authors received no financial support for the study.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.