MDedge Cardiology

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

In the decade since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, the United States has experienced more than 3,300 mass shootings, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.

Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.

Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
 

Physicians’ lack of qualifications

The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.

“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.

Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:

• “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
• “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
• “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
• “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022

Do mental health issues trump gun talks?

Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.

• “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
• “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
• “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
• “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022

Added responsibility is too much

Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.

• “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
• “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
• “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016

Other ways to communicate

For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.

Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.

“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.

“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

Gregory A. Hood, MD, remembers a patient of his who was perpetually dubious about COVID-19 – and then couldn’t be saved.

“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
 

The rise of the skeptical patient

It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.

“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.

Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”

Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.

Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.

“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”

“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
 

What are patients mistrustful about?

Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.

“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”

In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”

Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”

Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.

Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
 

Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit

Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.

“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”

Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.

However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.

For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”

Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.

Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
 

Best ways to deal with cynical patients

Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?

1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.

“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”

2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”

3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”

4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”

Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”

However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”

5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”

6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”

7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”

If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.

It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.

Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”

8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.

Conclusion

It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”

Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”

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

ANAHEIM – A wide range of factors can cause myocarditis; most often viral infections cause myocarditis in children and teens, according to Ryan Butts, MD, medical director of the pediatric advanced cardiac care program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Health of Texas.

Dr. Butts provided an overview of what pediatricians and other clinicians caring for children and teens should know about myocarditis at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The important new things that attendees may want to take away from this for their practice are improved recognition and diagnostic workup for acute viral myocarditis, making sure cardiology follow-up occurs after an admission for the condition, enhanced evaluation of the child before they return to competitive sports, and the availability of written or verbal education for patients relating to COVID vaccine–associated myocarditis, Dr. Butts said.

He also provided a set of key takeaways:

• Myocarditis is rare.
• The most common viruses causing myocarditis are always changing.
• Myocarditis is most common in infants and teenagers but it has different clinical patterns in each population.
• MRI is becoming the diagnostic tool of choice.
• IVIG frequently is used but good evidence for the therapy is lacking.
• Patients may go home on cardiac medications but have good long-term outcomes.
• Patients must have a 6-month restriction on competitive sports after diagnosis.

Frank Han, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at OSF Medical Center and Children’s Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, said he found the most helpful parts of Dr. Butts’ presentation to be the diagnosis and triage of myocarditis in the major age groups.

“Myocarditis can have variable presentations, and its cause may influence how the myocarditis behaves,” Dr. Han said. Pediatric cardiologists, he said, are uniquely positioned to triage and diagnose myocarditis.
 

Epidemiology and presentation

Just 0.05% of admissions from 28.6 million U.S. pediatric ED visits every year are for myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. While viruses are the most common cause of myocarditis, bacterial infections and noninfectious causes, including hypersensitivity reactions, systemic disorders, and toxic substances, can also cause the condition. The dominant viruses causing myocarditis have shifted over the years as well. Coxsackie B was the most common cause in the 1980s, but adenovirus became more common in the 1990s and parvovirus B19 in the 2000s. Why some kids develop myocarditis while others don’t is unclear, but the host-immune response to the virus likely plays an important role.

Research has shown two substantial spikes in the incidence of myocarditis children: infants under 2 years old and teens aged 14-19. Although myocarditis refers to any inflammation of myocardium not caused by ischemia, the signs, symptoms, and lab results vary according to patient’s age group. The only constant is that diaphoresis is rare across all ages.

Infants are more likely to show respiratory distress (68%) and an enlarged liver (40%) but can also present with gastrointestinal symptoms (24%). Vomiting without fever or diarrhea should arouse clinical suspicion of myocarditis in infants, although fever and diarrhea can occur.

In young children, who have the lowest incidence, fatigue presents in about one-third, with 20% presenting with chest pain and 20% with hepatomegaly. The most common symptom in teens by far (80%) is chest pain. About one-third also have respiratory distress but gastrointestinal symptoms are less common (20%).

When should a clinician suspect myocarditis in a teen presenting with chest pain? “If the chest pain is reproducible and if you can localize it, they don’t need further evaluation,” Dr. Butts said. “After that, it’s a lot about the history.”

In terms of lab results, ventricular function measured by brain natriuretic peptide is significantly depressed in infants and young children but often near normal in teens. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein) tend to be low in infants but elevated in young children and teens. And troponin levels, denoting myocardial injury, are minimal in infants and young children but elevated in teens. Median ejection fraction on echocardiograms, about 55% in normal hearts, will often be low in infants and young children, around 30%-33%, but is near normal (54%) in teens.
 

Diagnosis and management

Cardiac MRI increasingly has been replacing endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosis, with MRI exceeding biopsy use between 2009 and 2010, Dr. Butts said. The advantage of endomyocardial biopsy is that it’s specific, if not very sensitive. The test is invasive, however, requiring sedation and carrying the risk of tricuspid injury. The most common finding on cardiac MRI is late gadolinium enhancement (80%) while early gadolinium enhancement is less common (55%).

Although Dr. Butts mentioned the Dallas diagnostic criteria from 1987, he advocated for the more recent Lake Louise Criteria, which require clinical suspicion of myocarditis and at least two of three findings on MRI: T2-weighted myocardial abnormalities, T1 early or late gadolinium enhancement, or regional wall motion abnormalities or evidence of pericarditis

Point-of-care ultrasound can be useful for detecting myocarditis, but its success depends on whether the user can pick up on the subtle changes in ventricular function. “Just because someone has a point-of-care ultrasound that’s normal or thought to be normal, it shouldn’t rule out the diagnosis,” he said.

Learning the etiology of viral myocarditis often is difficult, and etiology doesn’t affect management of the condition, Dr. Butts said. Even in cases of myocarditis confirmed by biopsy, the virus may be identified in only about 60%-70% of cases with myocardial polymerase chain reaction. In clinical cases, the virus can be determined only about 25%-30% of the time with serum PCR.

Prognosis is usually good, with 80%-90% of children and teens going home transplant free despite most arriving critically ill and 50%-80% initially being admitted to ICU. Two-thirds of those discharged go home with heart failure medications, but only one in six are readmitted within a year.

The strongest risk factors for poor prognosis are younger age and being critically ill at presentation but other risk factors include female sex, poor ventricular function, poor perfusion on exam, increased dilation on echocardiogram, and a need for ECMO or inotropes or mechanical ventilation.

That said, Dr. Butts cautioned attendees not to ignore normal function. In one study of 171 patients, among 75 who presented with normal function, 15% went home with inotropes, 12% required mechanical ventilation, 9% had arrhythmia, and 5% needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

A big question in treatment is whether to give IVIG or not and the evidence is murky, Dr. Butts said. He reviewed a couple studies on IVIG, including one that suggested better ventricular functional recovery with the treatment but those who received IVIG were also more likely to be on an ACE inhibitor.

“Was it the ACE inhibitor or was it IVIG? We don’t know,” he said. Different cardiologists may give different opinions on IVIG. “It has nothing to do with the actual evidence behind it.”

IVIG has drawbacks: It’s very expensive and it involves risks that include serum sickness and interstitial nephritis.

“Pediatricians typically aren’t going to directly decide on giving or not giving IVIG,” Dr. Han said. “Typically, the ultimate choice comes from a group discussion between the hospital cardiologist – perhaps the hospitalist pediatrician if they are involved – and the family. We acknowledge the ambiguity of the evidence and decide based upon the severity of the initial disease process.”
 

Return to competitive sports; Follow-up critical

Experts are much more confident, however, about when teens admitted with viral myocarditis can return to competitive sports. But Dr. Butts said he suspects the guidelines for these children aren’t followed as closely as they should be. The American Heart Association recommends waiting 6 months after discharge and ensuring the athlete has a normal echocardiogram, Holter monitoring, and stress test.

“It’s incredibly important to have them come back and see the cardiologist 6 months after admission,” Dr. Butts said. “The only patient I’ve ever had who died 6-7 months post myocarditis is somebody who, during their stress test, had increasing ventricular ectopy. I told him not to do sports. He didn’t listen to me and unfortunately passed away – I’m assuming from arrhythmia.”
 

COVID and vaccine-associated myocarditis

Vaccine-associated myocarditis is substantially milder than viral myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. A small study from a single center in Atlanta found that ejection fraction at admission was normal, around 56%, in those with vaccine-associated myocarditis, compared with 45% with non-COVID viral myocarditis and 50% with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children or myocarditis from COVID-19. All patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis had normal function at discharge, compared with 73% of those with viral myocarditis and 93% with COVID-associated myocarditis.

While 22% of those with vaccine-associated myocarditis were admitted to the ICU, twice as many (40%) with viral myocarditis were, and three times as many (68%) with COVID-associated myocarditis ended up in intensive care.

Dr. Butts also noted a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention that found teen boys had two to six times greater risk of heart complications after COVID-19 infection than after COVID vaccination.

In terms of direct comparisons, vaccine-related myocarditis occurred about 12-18 times per 100,000 doses for boys ages 5-11 years, compared with cardiac involvement in 93-133 cases out of 100,000 COVID-19 infections. Boys aged 12-17 years experienced 12-21 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 doses of the vaccine, compared with cardiac involvement in 50-64 out of 100,000 infections.

The bottom line, Dr. Butts said, is that cardiac involvement in MIS-C is common, but typically improves by discharge. “Vaccine-associated myocarditis is a mild clinical syndrome that has a very short duration, and, in my opinion, should never lead us to ever advise anybody not to get the vaccine. I’ve had many patients, even patients in their first year post transplant, who have gotten the COVID-19 vaccine and were just fine.”

Dr. Butts acknowledged that talking with families about the risk of myocarditis with the vaccine is challenging. He often starts these conversations by sharing the statistics, but he said relatable stories are the key. He will also relate the statistics to something the parents and teen will understand, whether it’s sports or another comparison. He does recommend that teens who develop vaccine-associated myocarditis complete the series and get the booster. Their chances of developing myocarditis again are extremely low, whereas “the likelihood of them being really ill from COVID-19 is much, much higher.”

Dr. Butts and Dr. Han had no disclosures. The presentation involved no external funding.

ANAHEIM – A wide range of factors can cause myocarditis; most often viral infections cause myocarditis in children and teens, according to Ryan Butts, MD, medical director of the pediatric advanced cardiac care program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Health of Texas.

Dr. Butts provided an overview of what pediatricians and other clinicians caring for children and teens should know about myocarditis at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The important new things that attendees may want to take away from this for their practice are improved recognition and diagnostic workup for acute viral myocarditis, making sure cardiology follow-up occurs after an admission for the condition, enhanced evaluation of the child before they return to competitive sports, and the availability of written or verbal education for patients relating to COVID vaccine–associated myocarditis, Dr. Butts said.

He also provided a set of key takeaways:

• Myocarditis is rare.
• The most common viruses causing myocarditis are always changing.
• Myocarditis is most common in infants and teenagers but it has different clinical patterns in each population.
• MRI is becoming the diagnostic tool of choice.
• IVIG frequently is used but good evidence for the therapy is lacking.
• Patients may go home on cardiac medications but have good long-term outcomes.
• Patients must have a 6-month restriction on competitive sports after diagnosis.

Frank Han, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at OSF Medical Center and Children’s Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, said he found the most helpful parts of Dr. Butts’ presentation to be the diagnosis and triage of myocarditis in the major age groups.

“Myocarditis can have variable presentations, and its cause may influence how the myocarditis behaves,” Dr. Han said. Pediatric cardiologists, he said, are uniquely positioned to triage and diagnose myocarditis.
 

Epidemiology and presentation

Just 0.05% of admissions from 28.6 million U.S. pediatric ED visits every year are for myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. While viruses are the most common cause of myocarditis, bacterial infections and noninfectious causes, including hypersensitivity reactions, systemic disorders, and toxic substances, can also cause the condition. The dominant viruses causing myocarditis have shifted over the years as well. Coxsackie B was the most common cause in the 1980s, but adenovirus became more common in the 1990s and parvovirus B19 in the 2000s. Why some kids develop myocarditis while others don’t is unclear, but the host-immune response to the virus likely plays an important role.

Research has shown two substantial spikes in the incidence of myocarditis children: infants under 2 years old and teens aged 14-19. Although myocarditis refers to any inflammation of myocardium not caused by ischemia, the signs, symptoms, and lab results vary according to patient’s age group. The only constant is that diaphoresis is rare across all ages.

Infants are more likely to show respiratory distress (68%) and an enlarged liver (40%) but can also present with gastrointestinal symptoms (24%). Vomiting without fever or diarrhea should arouse clinical suspicion of myocarditis in infants, although fever and diarrhea can occur.

In young children, who have the lowest incidence, fatigue presents in about one-third, with 20% presenting with chest pain and 20% with hepatomegaly. The most common symptom in teens by far (80%) is chest pain. About one-third also have respiratory distress but gastrointestinal symptoms are less common (20%).

When should a clinician suspect myocarditis in a teen presenting with chest pain? “If the chest pain is reproducible and if you can localize it, they don’t need further evaluation,” Dr. Butts said. “After that, it’s a lot about the history.”

In terms of lab results, ventricular function measured by brain natriuretic peptide is significantly depressed in infants and young children but often near normal in teens. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein) tend to be low in infants but elevated in young children and teens. And troponin levels, denoting myocardial injury, are minimal in infants and young children but elevated in teens. Median ejection fraction on echocardiograms, about 55% in normal hearts, will often be low in infants and young children, around 30%-33%, but is near normal (54%) in teens.
 

Diagnosis and management

Cardiac MRI increasingly has been replacing endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosis, with MRI exceeding biopsy use between 2009 and 2010, Dr. Butts said. The advantage of endomyocardial biopsy is that it’s specific, if not very sensitive. The test is invasive, however, requiring sedation and carrying the risk of tricuspid injury. The most common finding on cardiac MRI is late gadolinium enhancement (80%) while early gadolinium enhancement is less common (55%).

Although Dr. Butts mentioned the Dallas diagnostic criteria from 1987, he advocated for the more recent Lake Louise Criteria, which require clinical suspicion of myocarditis and at least two of three findings on MRI: T2-weighted myocardial abnormalities, T1 early or late gadolinium enhancement, or regional wall motion abnormalities or evidence of pericarditis

Point-of-care ultrasound can be useful for detecting myocarditis, but its success depends on whether the user can pick up on the subtle changes in ventricular function. “Just because someone has a point-of-care ultrasound that’s normal or thought to be normal, it shouldn’t rule out the diagnosis,” he said.

Learning the etiology of viral myocarditis often is difficult, and etiology doesn’t affect management of the condition, Dr. Butts said. Even in cases of myocarditis confirmed by biopsy, the virus may be identified in only about 60%-70% of cases with myocardial polymerase chain reaction. In clinical cases, the virus can be determined only about 25%-30% of the time with serum PCR.

Prognosis is usually good, with 80%-90% of children and teens going home transplant free despite most arriving critically ill and 50%-80% initially being admitted to ICU. Two-thirds of those discharged go home with heart failure medications, but only one in six are readmitted within a year.

The strongest risk factors for poor prognosis are younger age and being critically ill at presentation but other risk factors include female sex, poor ventricular function, poor perfusion on exam, increased dilation on echocardiogram, and a need for ECMO or inotropes or mechanical ventilation.

That said, Dr. Butts cautioned attendees not to ignore normal function. In one study of 171 patients, among 75 who presented with normal function, 15% went home with inotropes, 12% required mechanical ventilation, 9% had arrhythmia, and 5% needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

A big question in treatment is whether to give IVIG or not and the evidence is murky, Dr. Butts said. He reviewed a couple studies on IVIG, including one that suggested better ventricular functional recovery with the treatment but those who received IVIG were also more likely to be on an ACE inhibitor.

“Was it the ACE inhibitor or was it IVIG? We don’t know,” he said. Different cardiologists may give different opinions on IVIG. “It has nothing to do with the actual evidence behind it.”

IVIG has drawbacks: It’s very expensive and it involves risks that include serum sickness and interstitial nephritis.

“Pediatricians typically aren’t going to directly decide on giving or not giving IVIG,” Dr. Han said. “Typically, the ultimate choice comes from a group discussion between the hospital cardiologist – perhaps the hospitalist pediatrician if they are involved – and the family. We acknowledge the ambiguity of the evidence and decide based upon the severity of the initial disease process.”
 

Return to competitive sports; Follow-up critical

Experts are much more confident, however, about when teens admitted with viral myocarditis can return to competitive sports. But Dr. Butts said he suspects the guidelines for these children aren’t followed as closely as they should be. The American Heart Association recommends waiting 6 months after discharge and ensuring the athlete has a normal echocardiogram, Holter monitoring, and stress test.

“It’s incredibly important to have them come back and see the cardiologist 6 months after admission,” Dr. Butts said. “The only patient I’ve ever had who died 6-7 months post myocarditis is somebody who, during their stress test, had increasing ventricular ectopy. I told him not to do sports. He didn’t listen to me and unfortunately passed away – I’m assuming from arrhythmia.”
 

COVID and vaccine-associated myocarditis

Vaccine-associated myocarditis is substantially milder than viral myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. A small study from a single center in Atlanta found that ejection fraction at admission was normal, around 56%, in those with vaccine-associated myocarditis, compared with 45% with non-COVID viral myocarditis and 50% with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children or myocarditis from COVID-19. All patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis had normal function at discharge, compared with 73% of those with viral myocarditis and 93% with COVID-associated myocarditis.

While 22% of those with vaccine-associated myocarditis were admitted to the ICU, twice as many (40%) with viral myocarditis were, and three times as many (68%) with COVID-associated myocarditis ended up in intensive care.

Dr. Butts also noted a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention that found teen boys had two to six times greater risk of heart complications after COVID-19 infection than after COVID vaccination.

In terms of direct comparisons, vaccine-related myocarditis occurred about 12-18 times per 100,000 doses for boys ages 5-11 years, compared with cardiac involvement in 93-133 cases out of 100,000 COVID-19 infections. Boys aged 12-17 years experienced 12-21 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 doses of the vaccine, compared with cardiac involvement in 50-64 out of 100,000 infections.

The bottom line, Dr. Butts said, is that cardiac involvement in MIS-C is common, but typically improves by discharge. “Vaccine-associated myocarditis is a mild clinical syndrome that has a very short duration, and, in my opinion, should never lead us to ever advise anybody not to get the vaccine. I’ve had many patients, even patients in their first year post transplant, who have gotten the COVID-19 vaccine and were just fine.”

Dr. Butts acknowledged that talking with families about the risk of myocarditis with the vaccine is challenging. He often starts these conversations by sharing the statistics, but he said relatable stories are the key. He will also relate the statistics to something the parents and teen will understand, whether it’s sports or another comparison. He does recommend that teens who develop vaccine-associated myocarditis complete the series and get the booster. Their chances of developing myocarditis again are extremely low, whereas “the likelihood of them being really ill from COVID-19 is much, much higher.”

Dr. Butts and Dr. Han had no disclosures. The presentation involved no external funding.

ANAHEIM – A wide range of factors can cause myocarditis; most often viral infections cause myocarditis in children and teens, according to Ryan Butts, MD, medical director of the pediatric advanced cardiac care program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children’s Health of Texas.

Dr. Butts provided an overview of what pediatricians and other clinicians caring for children and teens should know about myocarditis at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The important new things that attendees may want to take away from this for their practice are improved recognition and diagnostic workup for acute viral myocarditis, making sure cardiology follow-up occurs after an admission for the condition, enhanced evaluation of the child before they return to competitive sports, and the availability of written or verbal education for patients relating to COVID vaccine–associated myocarditis, Dr. Butts said.

He also provided a set of key takeaways:

• Myocarditis is rare.
• The most common viruses causing myocarditis are always changing.
• Myocarditis is most common in infants and teenagers but it has different clinical patterns in each population.
• MRI is becoming the diagnostic tool of choice.
• IVIG frequently is used but good evidence for the therapy is lacking.
• Patients may go home on cardiac medications but have good long-term outcomes.
• Patients must have a 6-month restriction on competitive sports after diagnosis.

Frank Han, MD, a pediatric cardiologist at OSF Medical Center and Children’s Hospital of Illinois in Peoria, said he found the most helpful parts of Dr. Butts’ presentation to be the diagnosis and triage of myocarditis in the major age groups.

“Myocarditis can have variable presentations, and its cause may influence how the myocarditis behaves,” Dr. Han said. Pediatric cardiologists, he said, are uniquely positioned to triage and diagnose myocarditis.
 

Epidemiology and presentation

Just 0.05% of admissions from 28.6 million U.S. pediatric ED visits every year are for myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. While viruses are the most common cause of myocarditis, bacterial infections and noninfectious causes, including hypersensitivity reactions, systemic disorders, and toxic substances, can also cause the condition. The dominant viruses causing myocarditis have shifted over the years as well. Coxsackie B was the most common cause in the 1980s, but adenovirus became more common in the 1990s and parvovirus B19 in the 2000s. Why some kids develop myocarditis while others don’t is unclear, but the host-immune response to the virus likely plays an important role.

Research has shown two substantial spikes in the incidence of myocarditis children: infants under 2 years old and teens aged 14-19. Although myocarditis refers to any inflammation of myocardium not caused by ischemia, the signs, symptoms, and lab results vary according to patient’s age group. The only constant is that diaphoresis is rare across all ages.

Infants are more likely to show respiratory distress (68%) and an enlarged liver (40%) but can also present with gastrointestinal symptoms (24%). Vomiting without fever or diarrhea should arouse clinical suspicion of myocarditis in infants, although fever and diarrhea can occur.

In young children, who have the lowest incidence, fatigue presents in about one-third, with 20% presenting with chest pain and 20% with hepatomegaly. The most common symptom in teens by far (80%) is chest pain. About one-third also have respiratory distress but gastrointestinal symptoms are less common (20%).

When should a clinician suspect myocarditis in a teen presenting with chest pain? “If the chest pain is reproducible and if you can localize it, they don’t need further evaluation,” Dr. Butts said. “After that, it’s a lot about the history.”

In terms of lab results, ventricular function measured by brain natriuretic peptide is significantly depressed in infants and young children but often near normal in teens. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein) tend to be low in infants but elevated in young children and teens. And troponin levels, denoting myocardial injury, are minimal in infants and young children but elevated in teens. Median ejection fraction on echocardiograms, about 55% in normal hearts, will often be low in infants and young children, around 30%-33%, but is near normal (54%) in teens.
 

Diagnosis and management

Cardiac MRI increasingly has been replacing endomyocardial biopsy for diagnosis, with MRI exceeding biopsy use between 2009 and 2010, Dr. Butts said. The advantage of endomyocardial biopsy is that it’s specific, if not very sensitive. The test is invasive, however, requiring sedation and carrying the risk of tricuspid injury. The most common finding on cardiac MRI is late gadolinium enhancement (80%) while early gadolinium enhancement is less common (55%).

Although Dr. Butts mentioned the Dallas diagnostic criteria from 1987, he advocated for the more recent Lake Louise Criteria, which require clinical suspicion of myocarditis and at least two of three findings on MRI: T2-weighted myocardial abnormalities, T1 early or late gadolinium enhancement, or regional wall motion abnormalities or evidence of pericarditis

Point-of-care ultrasound can be useful for detecting myocarditis, but its success depends on whether the user can pick up on the subtle changes in ventricular function. “Just because someone has a point-of-care ultrasound that’s normal or thought to be normal, it shouldn’t rule out the diagnosis,” he said.

Learning the etiology of viral myocarditis often is difficult, and etiology doesn’t affect management of the condition, Dr. Butts said. Even in cases of myocarditis confirmed by biopsy, the virus may be identified in only about 60%-70% of cases with myocardial polymerase chain reaction. In clinical cases, the virus can be determined only about 25%-30% of the time with serum PCR.

Prognosis is usually good, with 80%-90% of children and teens going home transplant free despite most arriving critically ill and 50%-80% initially being admitted to ICU. Two-thirds of those discharged go home with heart failure medications, but only one in six are readmitted within a year.

The strongest risk factors for poor prognosis are younger age and being critically ill at presentation but other risk factors include female sex, poor ventricular function, poor perfusion on exam, increased dilation on echocardiogram, and a need for ECMO or inotropes or mechanical ventilation.

That said, Dr. Butts cautioned attendees not to ignore normal function. In one study of 171 patients, among 75 who presented with normal function, 15% went home with inotropes, 12% required mechanical ventilation, 9% had arrhythmia, and 5% needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

A big question in treatment is whether to give IVIG or not and the evidence is murky, Dr. Butts said. He reviewed a couple studies on IVIG, including one that suggested better ventricular functional recovery with the treatment but those who received IVIG were also more likely to be on an ACE inhibitor.

“Was it the ACE inhibitor or was it IVIG? We don’t know,” he said. Different cardiologists may give different opinions on IVIG. “It has nothing to do with the actual evidence behind it.”

IVIG has drawbacks: It’s very expensive and it involves risks that include serum sickness and interstitial nephritis.

“Pediatricians typically aren’t going to directly decide on giving or not giving IVIG,” Dr. Han said. “Typically, the ultimate choice comes from a group discussion between the hospital cardiologist – perhaps the hospitalist pediatrician if they are involved – and the family. We acknowledge the ambiguity of the evidence and decide based upon the severity of the initial disease process.”
 

Return to competitive sports; Follow-up critical

Experts are much more confident, however, about when teens admitted with viral myocarditis can return to competitive sports. But Dr. Butts said he suspects the guidelines for these children aren’t followed as closely as they should be. The American Heart Association recommends waiting 6 months after discharge and ensuring the athlete has a normal echocardiogram, Holter monitoring, and stress test.

“It’s incredibly important to have them come back and see the cardiologist 6 months after admission,” Dr. Butts said. “The only patient I’ve ever had who died 6-7 months post myocarditis is somebody who, during their stress test, had increasing ventricular ectopy. I told him not to do sports. He didn’t listen to me and unfortunately passed away – I’m assuming from arrhythmia.”
 

COVID and vaccine-associated myocarditis

Vaccine-associated myocarditis is substantially milder than viral myocarditis, Dr. Butts said. A small study from a single center in Atlanta found that ejection fraction at admission was normal, around 56%, in those with vaccine-associated myocarditis, compared with 45% with non-COVID viral myocarditis and 50% with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children or myocarditis from COVID-19. All patients with vaccine-associated myocarditis had normal function at discharge, compared with 73% of those with viral myocarditis and 93% with COVID-associated myocarditis.

While 22% of those with vaccine-associated myocarditis were admitted to the ICU, twice as many (40%) with viral myocarditis were, and three times as many (68%) with COVID-associated myocarditis ended up in intensive care.

Dr. Butts also noted a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention that found teen boys had two to six times greater risk of heart complications after COVID-19 infection than after COVID vaccination.

In terms of direct comparisons, vaccine-related myocarditis occurred about 12-18 times per 100,000 doses for boys ages 5-11 years, compared with cardiac involvement in 93-133 cases out of 100,000 COVID-19 infections. Boys aged 12-17 years experienced 12-21 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 doses of the vaccine, compared with cardiac involvement in 50-64 out of 100,000 infections.

The bottom line, Dr. Butts said, is that cardiac involvement in MIS-C is common, but typically improves by discharge. “Vaccine-associated myocarditis is a mild clinical syndrome that has a very short duration, and, in my opinion, should never lead us to ever advise anybody not to get the vaccine. I’ve had many patients, even patients in their first year post transplant, who have gotten the COVID-19 vaccine and were just fine.”

Dr. Butts acknowledged that talking with families about the risk of myocarditis with the vaccine is challenging. He often starts these conversations by sharing the statistics, but he said relatable stories are the key. He will also relate the statistics to something the parents and teen will understand, whether it’s sports or another comparison. He does recommend that teens who develop vaccine-associated myocarditis complete the series and get the booster. Their chances of developing myocarditis again are extremely low, whereas “the likelihood of them being really ill from COVID-19 is much, much higher.”

Dr. Butts and Dr. Han had no disclosures. The presentation involved no external funding.

The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.

LDProd/Getty Images

“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].

“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Abnormalities affected detection

The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”

Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”

The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.

Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.

Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).

Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.

Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.

When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.

Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).

Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.

The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
 

‘A powerful tool’

Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).

Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.

“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”

Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.

“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
 

Technology improving

Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”

The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”

Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”

Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”

The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.

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

The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.

LDProd/Getty Images

“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].

“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Abnormalities affected detection

The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”

Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”

The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.

Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.

Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).

Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.

Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.

When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.

Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).

Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.

The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
 

‘A powerful tool’

Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).

Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.

“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”

Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.

“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
 

Technology improving

Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”

The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”

Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”

Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”

The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.

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

The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.

LDProd/Getty Images

“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].

“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.

The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Abnormalities affected detection

The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”

Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”

The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.

Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.

Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).

Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.

Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.

When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.

Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).

Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.

The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
 

‘A powerful tool’

Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).

Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.

“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”

Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.

“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
 

Technology improving

Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”

The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”

Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”

Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”

The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.

COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.

ClaudioVentrella/Thinkstock

“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.

“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”

The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.

It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.

Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.

“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.

When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.

For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.

Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.

Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.

While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.

“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”

Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.

The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.

Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.

“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.

“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Blogging is a great way to capture the attention of new patients and anyone interested in the diagnoses and procedures you specialize in. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.

Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.

Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.

By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)

The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.

You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.

That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.

Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.

Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.

Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.

If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics. 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 10/17/2022.

Blogging is a great way to capture the attention of new patients and anyone interested in the diagnoses and procedures you specialize in. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.

Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.

Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.

By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)

The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.

You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.

That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.

Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.

Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.

Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.

If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics. 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 10/17/2022.

Blogging is a great way to capture the attention of new patients and anyone interested in the diagnoses and procedures you specialize in. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.

Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.

Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.

By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)

The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.

You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.

That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.

Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.

Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.

Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.

If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics. 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

*This article was updated 10/17/2022.

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Cardiac biomarkers vary according to sex hormones in healthy transgender adults, just as in cisgender individuals, a new cross-sectional study suggests.

Previous research in the general population has shown that females have a lower 99th percentile upper reference limit for high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) than males, whereas N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations are higher in females than males across all ages after puberty.

“That trend is similar for people that have been on gender-affirming hormones, saying that sex hormones are playing a role in how cardiac turnover happens in a healthy state,” study author Dina M. Greene, PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

Although the number of transgender people seeking gender-affirming care is increasing, studies are limited and largely retrospective cohorts, she noted. The scientific literature evaluating and defining cardiac biomarker concentrations is “currently absent.”

The American Heart Association’s recent scientific statement on the cardiovascular health of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people says mounting evidence points to worse CV health in TGD people and that part of this excess risk is driven by significant psychosocial stressors across the lifespan. “In addition, the use of gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with cardiometabolic changes, but health research in this area remains limited and, at times, contradictory.”

For the present study, Dr. Greene and colleagues reached out to LGBTQ-oriented primary care and internal medicine clinics in Seattle and Iowa City to recruit 79 transgender men prescribed testosterone (mean age, 28.8 years) and 93 transgender women (mean age, 35.1 years) prescribed estradiol for at least 12 months. The mean duration of hormone therapy was 4.8 and 3.5 years, respectively.

The median estradiol concentration was 51 pg/mL in transgender men and 207 pg/mL in transgender women. Median testosterone concentrations were 4.6 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively.

The cardiac biomarkers were measured with the ARCHITECT STAT (Abbott Diagnostics) and ACCESS (Beckman Coulter) high-sensitivity troponin I assays, the Elecsys Troponin T Gen 5 STAT assay (Roche Diagnostics), and the Elecsys ProBNP II immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics).

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, the median hs-cTnI level on the ARCHITECT STAT assay was 0.9 ng/L (range, 0.6-1.7) in transgender men and 0.6 ng/L (range, 0.3-1.0) in transgender women. The pattern was consistent across the two other assays.

In contrast, the median NT-proBNP level was 17 ng/L (range, 13-27) in transgender men and 49 ng/L (range, 32-86) in transgender women.

“It seems that sex hormone concentration is a stronger driver of baseline cardiac troponin and NT-proBNP concentrations relative to sex assigned at birth,” Dr. Greene said.

The observed differences in hs-cTn concentrations “are likely physiological and not pathological,” given that concentrations between healthy cisgender people are also apparent and not thought to portend adverse events, the authors noted.

Teasing out the clinical implications of sex-specific hs-cTn upper reference limits for ruling in acute myocardial infarction (MI), however, is complicated by biological and social factors that contribute to poorer outcomes in women, despite lower baseline levels, they added. “Ultimately, the psychosocial benefits of gender-affirming hormones are substantial, and informed consent is likely the ideal method to balance the undetermined risks.”

Dr. Greene pointed out that the study wasn’t powered to accurately calculate gender-specific hs-cTn 99th percentiles or reference intervals for NT-proBNP and assessed the biomarkers at a single time point.

For the transgender person presenting with chest pain, she said, the clinical implications are not yet known, but the data suggest that when sex-specific 99th percentiles for hs-cTn are used, the numeric value associated with the affirmed gender, rather than the sex assigned at birth, may be the appropriate URL.

“It really depends on what the triage pathway is and if that pathway has differences for people of different sexes and how often people get serial measurements,” Dr. Greene said. “Within this population, it’s very important to look at those serial measurements because for people that are not cismen, those 99th percentiles when they’re non–sex specific, are going to favor in detection of a heart attack. So, you need to look at the second value to make sure there hasn’t been a change over time.”

The observed differences in the distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations is similar to that in the cisgender population, Dr. Greene noted. But these differences do not lead to sex-specific diagnostic thresholds because of the significant elevations present in overt heart failure and cardiovascular disease. “For NT-proBNP, it’s not as important. People don’t usually have a little bit of heart failure, they have heart failure, where people have small MIs.”

Dr. Greene said she would like to see larger trials looking at biomarker measurements and cardiac imaging before hormone therapy but that the biggest issue is the need for inclusion of transgender people in all cardiovascular trials.

“The sample sizes are never going to be as big as we get for cisgender people for a number of reasons but ensuring that it’s something that’s being asked on intake and monitored over time so we can understand how transgender people fit into the general population for cardiac disease,” Dr. Greene said. “And so, we can normalize that they exist. I keep driving this point home, but this is the biggest thing right now when it’s such a political issue.”

The study was supported in part by the department of laboratory medicine at the University of Washington, the department of pathology at the University of Iowa, and a grant from Abbott Diagnostics for in-kind high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I reagent. One coauthor reported financial relationships with Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, Beckman Coulter, Becton, Dickinson, Abbott Diagnostics, Quidel Diagnostics, Sphingotech, and PixCell Medical. No other disclosures were reported.

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

A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.

The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.

The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Hard-driving profession’

The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.

“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.

The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.

“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.

“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”

She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”

Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.

“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.

The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.

“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.

Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.

“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.

As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.

“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
 

A growing need

“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Courtesy Yale University

“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.

“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
 

‘Thoughtful and long overdue’

“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.

“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”

Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.

The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.

The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Hard-driving profession’

The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.

“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.

The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.

“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.

“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”

She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”

Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.

“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.

The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.

“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.

Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.

“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.

As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.

“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
 

A growing need

“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Courtesy Yale University

“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.

“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
 

‘Thoughtful and long overdue’

“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.

“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”

Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new statement from the American College of Cardiology is calling for a greater degree of career flexibility in the specialty to promote cardiologists’ personal and professional well-being and preserve excellence in patient care.

The statement recommends that cardiologists, from trainees to those contemplating retirement, be granted more leeway in their careers to allow them to take time for common life events, such as child-rearing, taking care of aged parents, or reducing their workload in case of poor health or physical disabilities, without jeopardizing their careers.

The “2022 ACC Health Policy Statement on Career Flexibility in Cardiology: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee” was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Hard-driving profession’

The well-being of the cardiovascular workforce is critical to the achievement of the mission of the ACC, which is to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health, the Health Policy writing committee stated. Career flexibility is an important component of ensuring that well-being, the authors wrote.

“The ACC has critically looked at the factors that contribute to the lack of diversity and inclusion in cardiovascular practice, and one of the issues is the lack of flexibility in our profession,” writing committee chair, Mary Norine Walsh, MD, medical director of the heart failure and cardiac transplantation programs, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, Ind., told this news organization.

The notion of work-life balance has become increasingly important but cardiology as a profession has traditionally not been open to the idea of its value, Dr. Walsh said.

“We have a very hard-driving profession. It takes many years to train to do the work we do. The need for on-call services is very significant, and we go along because we have always done it this way, but if you don’t reexamine the way that you are structuring your work, you’ll never change it,” she said.

“For example, the ‘full time, full call, come to work after you’ve been up all night’ work ethic, which is no longer allowed for trainees, is still in effect once you get into university practice or clinical practice. We have interventional cardiologists up all night doing STEMI care for patients and then having a full clinic the next day,” Dr. Walsh said. “The changes that came about for trainees have not trickled up to the faculty or clinical practice level. It’s really a patient safety issue.”

She emphasized that the new policy statement is not focused solely on women. “The need for time away or flexible time around family planning, childbirth, and parental leave is increasingly important to our younger colleagues, both men and women.”

Dr. Walsh pointed out that the writing committee was carefully composed to include representation from all stakeholders.

“We have representation from very young cardiologists, one of whom was in training at the time we began our work. We have two systems CEOs who are cardiologists, we have a chair of medicine, we have two very senior cardiologists, and someone who works in industry,” she said.

The ACC also believes that cardiologists with physically demanding roles should have pathways to transition into other opportunities in patient care, research, or education.

“Right now, there are many cardiology practices that have traditional policies, where you are either all in, or you are all out. They do not allow for what we term a ‘step down’ policy, where you perhaps stop going into the cath lab, but you still do clinic and see patients,” Dr. Walsh noted.

“One of the goals of this policy statement is to allow for such practices to look at their compensation and structure, and to realize that their most senior cardiologists may be willing to stay on for several more years and be contributing members to the practice, but they may no longer wish to stay in the cath lab or be in the night call pool,” she said.

Transparency around compensation is also very important because cardiologists contemplating a reduced work schedule need to know how this will affect the amount of money they will be earning, she added.

“Transparency about policies around compensation are crucial because if an individual cardiologist wishes to pursue a flexible scheduling at any time in their career, it’s clear that they won’t have the same compensation as someone who is a full-time employee. All of this has to be very transparent and clear on both sides, so that the person deciding toward some flexibility understands what the implications are from a financial and compensation standpoint,” Dr. Walsh said.

As an example, a senior career cardiologist who no longer wants to take night calls should know what this may cost financially.

“The practice should set a valuation of night calls, so that the individual who makes the choice to step out of the call pool understands what the impact on their compensation will be. That type of transparency is necessary for all to ensure that individuals who seek flexibility will not be blindsided by the resulting decrease in financial compensation,” she said.
 

A growing need

“In its new health policy statement, the American College of Cardiology addresses the growing need for career flexibility as an important component of ensuring the well-being of the cardiovascular care workforce,” Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM, Harold H. Hines Jr. Professor of Medicine and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Courtesy Yale University

“The writing committee reviews opportunities for offering flexibility at all career levels to combat burnout and increase retention in the field, as well as proposes system, policy, and practice solutions to allow both men and women to emphasize and embrace work-life balance,” Dr. Krumholz said.

“The document provides pathways for cardiologists looking to pursue other interests or career transitions while maintaining excellence in clinical care,” he added. “Chief among these recommendations are flexible/part-time hours, leave and reentry policies, changes in job descriptions to support overarching cultural change, and equitable compensation and opportunities. The document is intended to be used as a guide for innovation in the cardiology workforce.”
 

‘Thoughtful and long overdue’

“This policy statement is thoughtful and long overdue,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Lewis and Patricia Dickey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and professor of medicine at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization.

“Career flexibility will allow cardiologists to fulfill family responsibilities while continuing to advance their careers. Successfully contributing to patient care and research does not require physicians to isolate themselves from all their other responsibilities,” Dr. Nissen added.

“I am pleased that the ACC has articulated the value of a balanced approach to career and family.”

Dr. Walsh, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Nissen report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

The substantial reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality achieved with intensive blood pressure lowering in the landmark SPRINT trial were not sustained in a newly released long-term follow-up.

The loss of the mortality benefits corresponded with a steady climb in the average systolic blood pressures (SBP) in the intensive treatment group after the trial ended. The long-term benefit serves as a call to develop better strategies for sustained SBP control.

“We were disappointed but not surprised that the blood pressure levels in the intensive goal group were not sustained,” acknowledged William C. Cushman, MD, Medical Director, department of preventive medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis. “There are many trials showing no residual or legacy effect once the intervention is stopped.”
 

Long-term results do not weaken SPRINT

One of the coinvestigators of this most recent analysis published in JAMA Cardiology and a member of the SPRINT writing committee at the time of its 2015 publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Cushman pointed out that the long-term results do not weaken the main trial result. Long-term adherence was not part of the trial design.

“After the trial, we were no longer treating these participants, so it was up to them and their primary care providers to decide on blood pressure goals,” he noted in an interview. Based on the trajectory of benefit when the study was stopped, “it is possible longer intensive treatment may lead to more benefit and some long-term residual benefits.”

The senior author of this most recent analysis, Nicholas M. Pajewski, PhD, associate professor of biostatistics and data science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., generally agreed. However, he pointed out that the most recent data do not rule out meaningful benefit after the study ended.

For one reason, the loss of the SBP advantage was gradual so that median SBP levels of the two groups did not meet for nearly 3 years. This likely explains why there was still an attenuation of CVD mortality for several years after the all-cause mortality benefit was lost, according to Dr. Pajewski.

“It is important to mention that we were not able to assess nonfatal cardiovascular events, so while the two groups do eventually come together, if one thinks about the distinction of healthspan versus lifespan, there was probably residual benefit in terms of delaying CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Pajewski said.
 

In SPRINT, CVD mortality reduced 43%

In the 9,631-patient SPRINT trial, the intensive treatment group achieved a mean SBP of 121.4 mm Hg versus 136.2 mm Hg in the standard treatment group at the end of 1 year. The trial was stopped early after 3.26 years because of strength of the benefit in the intensive treatment arm. At that time, the reductions by hazard ratio were 25% (HR, 0.75; P < .001) for a composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoint, 43% for CVD mortality (P = .005), and 27% for all-cause mortality (P = .003).

In the new observational follow-up, mortality data were drawn from the National Death Index, and change in SBP from electronic health records in a subset of 2,944 SPRINT trial participants. Data were available and analyzed through 2020.

The newly published long-term observational analysis showed that the median SBP in the intensive treatment arm was already climbing by the end of the end of the trial. It reached 132.8 mm Hg at 5 years after randomization and then 140.4 mm Hg by 10 years.

This latter figure was essentially equivalent to the SBP among those who were initially randomized to the standard treatment arm.
 

Factors driving rising BP are unclear

There is limited information on what medications were taken by either group following the end of the trial, so the reason for the regression in the intensive treatment arm after leaving the trial is unknown. The authors speculated that this might have been due to therapeutic inertia among treating physicians, poor adherence among patients, the difficulty of keeping blood pressures low in patients with advancing pathology, or some combination of these.

“Perhaps the most important reason was that providers and patients were not aiming for the lower goals since guidelines did not recommend these targets until 2017,” Dr. Cushman pointed out. He noted that Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) “has still not adopted a performance measure goal of less than 140 mm Hg.”

In an accompanying editorial, the authors focused on what these data mean for population-based strategies to achieve sustained control of one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular events. Led by Daniel W. Jones, MD, director of clinical and population science, University of Mississippi, Jackson, the authors of the editorial wrote that these data emphasized “the challenge of achieving sustained intensive BP reductions in the real-world setting.”

Basically, the editorial concluded that current approaches to achieving meaningful and sustained blood pressure control are not working.

This study “should be a wakeup call, but other previously published good data have also been ignored,” said Dr. Jones in an interview. Despite the compelling benefit from intensive blood pressure control the SPRINT trial, the observational follow-up emphasizes the difficulty of maintaining the rigorous reductions in blood pressure needed for sustained protection.

“Systemic change is necessary,” said Dr. Jones, reprising the major thrust of the editorial he wrote with Donald Clark III, MD, and Michael E. Hall, MD, who are both colleagues at the University of Mississippi.

“My view is that health care providers should be held responsible for motivating better compliance of their patients, just as a teacher is accountable for the outcomes of their students,” he said.

The solutions are not likely to be simple. Dr. Jones called for multiple strategies, such as employing telehealth and community health workers to monitor and reinforce blood pressure control, but he said that these and other data have convinced him that “simply trying harder at what we currently do” is not enough.

Dr. Pajewski and Dr. Jones report no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Cushman reports a financial relationship with ReCor.

A “high-intensity-care” strategy based on early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds improves postdischarge clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure (HF), suggest topline results from a randomized trial.

The STRONG-HF study was halted early on recommendation from its data safety monitoring board after an interim analysis suggested the high-intensity-care strategy significantly cut risk of death or HF readmission, compared with a standard-of-care approach.

The trial termination was announced  in a press release from one of its sponsors, The Heart Initiative, a nonprofit organization. STRONG-HF was also supported by Roche Diagnostics.

The early termination was based on interim data from the approximately 1,000 patients, out of an estimated planned enrollment of 1,800, who had been followed for at least 90 days. The study’s actual primary endpoint had been defined by death or HF readmission at 6 months.

The announcement did not include outcomes data or P values, or any other indication of the magnitude of benefit from the high-intensity-care approach.

Patients in STRONG-HF who had been assigned to a high-intensity-care strategy had been started in-hospital on a beta blocker, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker (MRA) with dosages uptitrated at least halfway by the time of discharge.

The meds were uptitrated fully within 2 weeks of discharge guided by clinical and biomarker assessments, especially natriuretic peptides, at frequent postdischarge visits, the press release states.

Patients conducted “safety visits 1 week after any uptitration and follow-up visits at 6 weeks and 3 months,” the announcement notes. “At each visit, patients were assessed by physical examination for congestion and blood tests, including NT-proBNP measurements.”

The “full STRONG-HF trial results” are scheduled for presentation at the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions, the announcement states.

STRONG-HF is sponsored by The Heart Initiative and Roche Diagnostics.

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

A “high-intensity-care” strategy based on early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds improves postdischarge clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure (HF), suggest topline results from a randomized trial.

The STRONG-HF study was halted early on recommendation from its data safety monitoring board after an interim analysis suggested the high-intensity-care strategy significantly cut risk of death or HF readmission, compared with a standard-of-care approach.

The trial termination was announced  in a press release from one of its sponsors, The Heart Initiative, a nonprofit organization. STRONG-HF was also supported by Roche Diagnostics.

The early termination was based on interim data from the approximately 1,000 patients, out of an estimated planned enrollment of 1,800, who had been followed for at least 90 days. The study’s actual primary endpoint had been defined by death or HF readmission at 6 months.

The announcement did not include outcomes data or P values, or any other indication of the magnitude of benefit from the high-intensity-care approach.

Patients in STRONG-HF who had been assigned to a high-intensity-care strategy had been started in-hospital on a beta blocker, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker (MRA) with dosages uptitrated at least halfway by the time of discharge.

The meds were uptitrated fully within 2 weeks of discharge guided by clinical and biomarker assessments, especially natriuretic peptides, at frequent postdischarge visits, the press release states.

Patients conducted “safety visits 1 week after any uptitration and follow-up visits at 6 weeks and 3 months,” the announcement notes. “At each visit, patients were assessed by physical examination for congestion and blood tests, including NT-proBNP measurements.”

The “full STRONG-HF trial results” are scheduled for presentation at the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions, the announcement states.

STRONG-HF is sponsored by The Heart Initiative and Roche Diagnostics.

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

A “high-intensity-care” strategy based on early and rapid uptitration of guideline-directed meds improves postdischarge clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with decompensated heart failure (HF), suggest topline results from a randomized trial.

The STRONG-HF study was halted early on recommendation from its data safety monitoring board after an interim analysis suggested the high-intensity-care strategy significantly cut risk of death or HF readmission, compared with a standard-of-care approach.

The trial termination was announced  in a press release from one of its sponsors, The Heart Initiative, a nonprofit organization. STRONG-HF was also supported by Roche Diagnostics.

The early termination was based on interim data from the approximately 1,000 patients, out of an estimated planned enrollment of 1,800, who had been followed for at least 90 days. The study’s actual primary endpoint had been defined by death or HF readmission at 6 months.

The announcement did not include outcomes data or P values, or any other indication of the magnitude of benefit from the high-intensity-care approach.

Patients in STRONG-HF who had been assigned to a high-intensity-care strategy had been started in-hospital on a beta blocker, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker (MRA) with dosages uptitrated at least halfway by the time of discharge.

The meds were uptitrated fully within 2 weeks of discharge guided by clinical and biomarker assessments, especially natriuretic peptides, at frequent postdischarge visits, the press release states.

Patients conducted “safety visits 1 week after any uptitration and follow-up visits at 6 weeks and 3 months,” the announcement notes. “At each visit, patients were assessed by physical examination for congestion and blood tests, including NT-proBNP measurements.”

The “full STRONG-HF trial results” are scheduled for presentation at the American Heart Association annual scientific sessions, the announcement states.

STRONG-HF is sponsored by The Heart Initiative and Roche Diagnostics.

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