Cardiology News

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

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].

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

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].

Time for my periodic reminder about your Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) obligations. The health care field still has the most work-related illness and injury reports of any industry in the United States, and OSHA standards are in place to minimize potential workplace incidents.

Now might be a good time to get out your OSHA logs, walk through your office, and confirm that you remain in compliance with all the applicable regulations. Even if you hold regular safety meetings (which all too often is not the case), the occasional comprehensive review is always a good idea, and could save you a bundle in fines.

For starters, do you have an official OSHA poster, enumerating employee rights and explaining how to file complaints? Every office must have one posted in plain sight, and it is the first thing an OSHA inspector will look for. You can download one from OSHA’s website or order one at no charge by calling 800-321-OSHA.

The poster discusses the “general standards” that all workplaces must comply with to avoid work-related illnesses and injuries. The standards most applicable to medical offices are those dealing with personal protective equipment (PPE), bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, and – increasingly, of late – ionizing radiation.

Physicians have become all too familiar with the PPE standard as a result of the COVID pandemic. Ironically, OSHA considers PPE a less acceptable means of employee protection than the other standards, as safe work practices should always supersede safety equipment. Nevertheless, employers must have a PPE program in place to train employees on what equipment is necessary, and under which conditions.

You also need a written exposure control plan for bloodborne pathogens. It should document your use of such protective equipment as gloves, face and eye protection, needle guards, and gowns, and your implementation of universal precautions – and it is supposed to be updated annually, to reflect changes in technology. You must provide all at-risk employees with hepatitis B vaccine at no cost to them. You also must provide and pay for appropriate medical treatment and follow-up after any exposure to a dangerous pathogen.

You need not adopt every new safety device as it comes on the market, but you should document which ones you are using – and which you pass up – and why. For example, you and your employees may decide not to purchase a new safety needle because you don’t think it will improve safety, or that it will be more trouble than it’s worth; but you should document how you arrived at that decision, and why you feel that your current protocol is as good or better.

The hazard communication (or right-to-know) standard involves compiling a list of hazardous substances, which all employees have a right to know about. Keep in mind that OSHA’s list includes alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, acetone, liquid nitrogen, and other substances that you might not consider particularly dangerous, but are nevertheless classified as “hazardous.” For each substance, your employees must have access to the manufacturer-supplied Material Safety Data Sheet, which outlines the proper procedures for working with a specific material, and for handling and containing it in a spill or other emergency.

If your office has x-ray equipment, or you are considering one of the new image-guided superficial radiotherapy machines, you must be in compliance with the ionizing radiation standard, which entails shielding, radiation monitors, and clear labeling of equipment.

Other, more general regulations include the physical setup of your office. Everyone must be able to evacuate quickly in case of fire or other emergencies. At a minimum, you (or the owner of the office building) are expected to establish exit routes to accommodate all employees and to post easily visible evacuation diagrams.

Examine all electrical devices and their power sources. All electrically powered equipment – medical, clerical, or anything else in the office – must operate safely. Pay particular attention to the way wall outlets are set up. Make sure each outlet has sufficient power to run the equipment plugged into it, and that circuit breakers are present and functioning. And beware the common situation of too many gadgets running off a single circuit.

Other components of the rule include proper containment of regulated medical waste, identification of regulated-waste containers, sharps disposal boxes, and periodic employee training regarding all of these things.

Federal OSHA regulations do not require medical and dental offices to keep an injury and illness log, as other businesses must; but your state may have a requirement that supersedes the federal law. Check with your state, or with your local OSHA office, regarding any such requirements.

It is a mistake to take OSHA regulations lightly; failure to comply with them can result in stiff penalties running into many thousands of dollars. How can you be certain you are complying with all the rules? The easiest and cheapest way is to call your local OSHA office and request an inspection. Why would you do that? Because OSHA issues no citations during voluntary inspections as long as you agree to remedy any violations they find.

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].

A new study has shown a substantial variation in the blood pressure response to various antihypertensive medications between individuals, raising the possibility of future personalized therapy.

“We found that using the optimal antihypertensive drug for a particular patient resulted in an average of a 4.4 mm Hg greater reduction of blood pressure compared with a random choice of the other drugs. That is quite a substantial difference, and could be equivalent to adding in another drug,” lead author Johan Sundström, MD, Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, told this news organization.

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

“These preliminary findings suggest that some people may be better treated with one antihypertensive drug rather than another. This is opening up the field of hypertension for personalized medicine,” he added.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The authors noted that despite global access to multiple classes of highly effective blood pressure-lowering drugs, only one in four women and one in five men with hypertension reach treatment targets. While most hypertension guidelines advocate combination pharmacotherapy, many patients in routine care continue to be treated with monotherapy, with adverse effects and nonadherence being important clinical problems.

“One drug often does not give enough blood pressure reduction, but patients are often reluctant to up-titrate to two drugs,” Dr. Sundström said. “While we know that the four recommended classes of antihypertensives lower blood pressure equally well on average, we don’t know if their efficacy is the same in individual patients.

“We wondered whether there could be different optimal drugs for different people, and if we could identify the optimal drug for each person then maybe more patients could get to target levels with just one drug,” he said.

The researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, repeated crossover trial at an outpatient research clinic in Sweden, studying 280 men and women with grade 1 hypertension at low risk for cardiovascular events.

Each participant was scheduled for 2 months’ treatment in random order with each of four different classes of antihypertensive drugs: an ACE inhibitor, lisinopril; an angiotensin II blocker, candesartan; a thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide; a calcium channel blocker, amlodipine.

There were then repeated treatment periods for two drug classes to try to account for any effect of a particular event that might have affected the blood pressure at one point in time. Ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure was measured at the end of each treatment period.

Results showed that variation in systolic blood pressure was large between treatments on average, between participants on average, within participants taking the same treatment, and between treatments in the same participant.

Overall, personalized treatment using the optimal single-drug therapy led to a 4.4–mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure in the trial population than a random choice of any of the other drug classes.

Taking into consideration that lisinopril was found to be on average the most efficacious of the drugs at the selected doses, personalized treatment compared with lisinopril still led to a 3.1–mm Hg improvement in systolic blood pressure.

The researchers noted that the mean additional blood pressure reduction achievable by using the optimal agent was of a magnitude twice that achieved by doubling the dose of a first drug, and more than half that of adding a second drug on average.

While there were only small differences between certain drugs (e.g., candesartan vs. lisinopril; amlodipine vs. hydrochlorothiazide), for all other comparisons tested, the choice was important, with particularly large gains to be made by personalizing the choice between candesartan vs. amlodipine and between lisinopril vs. amlodipine.

In addition, some people showed very large differences in response to different drugs, whereas others did not have much difference at all.
 

How to identify the optimal drug?

“The million-dollar question is how we identify the best drug for each individual patient,” Dr. Sundström said. “This study has opened Pandora’s box. We now need to figure out how to go forward and how we tailor treatment in each patient.”

In the study, the researchers suggest that personalizing therapy could be achieved either by identifying the phenotypic characteristics that are associated with enhanced response to one treatment vs. another or by directly measuring the individual’s responses to a series of treatments to ascertain which is most effective.

Addressing the first scenario, Dr. Sundström explained: “We can analyze the characteristics of patients who did best on each drug. There are many variables we can look at here such as age, diet, baseline blood pressure, exercise levels, smoking status, race, body weight, salt intake, and findings from genetic tests. We are going to try to look into these to see if we can find any predictors of response to various different drugs.”

For the second strategy, he suggested that patients starting pharmacologic therapy could try a few different treatments. “For example, we could give patients two different drugs and ask them to alternate treatment periods with each of them and measure their blood pressure with a home monitoring kit and record adverse effects.”

Nonadherence “is such a big problem with antihypertensives,” he added. “This approach may allow patients to be more empowered when choosing the right treatment, which should help adherence in the longer term.”
 

‘Proof-of-principle’

Commenting on the study in an accompanying editorial, Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, wrote: “At this stage, the findings are more theoretical than immediately practical for the implementation of personalized antihypertensive drug therapy, but the study does provide proof-of-principle and the authors suggest a few scenarios in which a personalized approach could be used in the future.”

He said the practical ramifications of personally targeted therapy remain unclear, given that determination of an individual’s response to a series of short test treatments before selecting long-term therapy may be considered too cumbersome, and currently few phenotypic markers are currently available that would be likely to accurately predict the individual response to a particular therapy.

Dr. Carey concluded that the results of this study “encourage the further pursuit of larger randomized trials using similar repeated crossover designs to validate this concept and eventually in trials with longer follow-up data to determine whether there is improvement in long-term clinical outcomes compared with current strategies.”

He added that the results support the possibility that personalized medical treatment of hypertension “may ultimately supplement or even supplant the current method of antihypertensive drug decision-making in the future.”

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council; Kjell and Märta Beijer Foundation; and Anders Wiklöf. Dr. Sundström reported owning stock in Symptoms Europe AB and Anagram Kommunikation AB. Coauthor Emil Hagström, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Pfizer and Amgen and personal fees from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amarin, and Novartis. Coauthor Ollie Östlund, PhD, reported fees from Uppsala University paid to his institution, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, for its participation in the PHYSIC trial during the conduct of the study. Dr. Carey reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new study has shown a substantial variation in the blood pressure response to various antihypertensive medications between individuals, raising the possibility of future personalized therapy.

“We found that using the optimal antihypertensive drug for a particular patient resulted in an average of a 4.4 mm Hg greater reduction of blood pressure compared with a random choice of the other drugs. That is quite a substantial difference, and could be equivalent to adding in another drug,” lead author Johan Sundström, MD, Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, told this news organization.

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

“These preliminary findings suggest that some people may be better treated with one antihypertensive drug rather than another. This is opening up the field of hypertension for personalized medicine,” he added.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The authors noted that despite global access to multiple classes of highly effective blood pressure-lowering drugs, only one in four women and one in five men with hypertension reach treatment targets. While most hypertension guidelines advocate combination pharmacotherapy, many patients in routine care continue to be treated with monotherapy, with adverse effects and nonadherence being important clinical problems.

“One drug often does not give enough blood pressure reduction, but patients are often reluctant to up-titrate to two drugs,” Dr. Sundström said. “While we know that the four recommended classes of antihypertensives lower blood pressure equally well on average, we don’t know if their efficacy is the same in individual patients.

“We wondered whether there could be different optimal drugs for different people, and if we could identify the optimal drug for each person then maybe more patients could get to target levels with just one drug,” he said.

The researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, repeated crossover trial at an outpatient research clinic in Sweden, studying 280 men and women with grade 1 hypertension at low risk for cardiovascular events.

Each participant was scheduled for 2 months’ treatment in random order with each of four different classes of antihypertensive drugs: an ACE inhibitor, lisinopril; an angiotensin II blocker, candesartan; a thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide; a calcium channel blocker, amlodipine.

There were then repeated treatment periods for two drug classes to try to account for any effect of a particular event that might have affected the blood pressure at one point in time. Ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure was measured at the end of each treatment period.

Results showed that variation in systolic blood pressure was large between treatments on average, between participants on average, within participants taking the same treatment, and between treatments in the same participant.

Overall, personalized treatment using the optimal single-drug therapy led to a 4.4–mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure in the trial population than a random choice of any of the other drug classes.

Taking into consideration that lisinopril was found to be on average the most efficacious of the drugs at the selected doses, personalized treatment compared with lisinopril still led to a 3.1–mm Hg improvement in systolic blood pressure.

The researchers noted that the mean additional blood pressure reduction achievable by using the optimal agent was of a magnitude twice that achieved by doubling the dose of a first drug, and more than half that of adding a second drug on average.

While there were only small differences between certain drugs (e.g., candesartan vs. lisinopril; amlodipine vs. hydrochlorothiazide), for all other comparisons tested, the choice was important, with particularly large gains to be made by personalizing the choice between candesartan vs. amlodipine and between lisinopril vs. amlodipine.

In addition, some people showed very large differences in response to different drugs, whereas others did not have much difference at all.
 

How to identify the optimal drug?

“The million-dollar question is how we identify the best drug for each individual patient,” Dr. Sundström said. “This study has opened Pandora’s box. We now need to figure out how to go forward and how we tailor treatment in each patient.”

In the study, the researchers suggest that personalizing therapy could be achieved either by identifying the phenotypic characteristics that are associated with enhanced response to one treatment vs. another or by directly measuring the individual’s responses to a series of treatments to ascertain which is most effective.

Addressing the first scenario, Dr. Sundström explained: “We can analyze the characteristics of patients who did best on each drug. There are many variables we can look at here such as age, diet, baseline blood pressure, exercise levels, smoking status, race, body weight, salt intake, and findings from genetic tests. We are going to try to look into these to see if we can find any predictors of response to various different drugs.”

For the second strategy, he suggested that patients starting pharmacologic therapy could try a few different treatments. “For example, we could give patients two different drugs and ask them to alternate treatment periods with each of them and measure their blood pressure with a home monitoring kit and record adverse effects.”

Nonadherence “is such a big problem with antihypertensives,” he added. “This approach may allow patients to be more empowered when choosing the right treatment, which should help adherence in the longer term.”
 

‘Proof-of-principle’

Commenting on the study in an accompanying editorial, Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, wrote: “At this stage, the findings are more theoretical than immediately practical for the implementation of personalized antihypertensive drug therapy, but the study does provide proof-of-principle and the authors suggest a few scenarios in which a personalized approach could be used in the future.”

He said the practical ramifications of personally targeted therapy remain unclear, given that determination of an individual’s response to a series of short test treatments before selecting long-term therapy may be considered too cumbersome, and currently few phenotypic markers are currently available that would be likely to accurately predict the individual response to a particular therapy.

Dr. Carey concluded that the results of this study “encourage the further pursuit of larger randomized trials using similar repeated crossover designs to validate this concept and eventually in trials with longer follow-up data to determine whether there is improvement in long-term clinical outcomes compared with current strategies.”

He added that the results support the possibility that personalized medical treatment of hypertension “may ultimately supplement or even supplant the current method of antihypertensive drug decision-making in the future.”

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council; Kjell and Märta Beijer Foundation; and Anders Wiklöf. Dr. Sundström reported owning stock in Symptoms Europe AB and Anagram Kommunikation AB. Coauthor Emil Hagström, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Pfizer and Amgen and personal fees from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amarin, and Novartis. Coauthor Ollie Östlund, PhD, reported fees from Uppsala University paid to his institution, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, for its participation in the PHYSIC trial during the conduct of the study. Dr. Carey reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new study has shown a substantial variation in the blood pressure response to various antihypertensive medications between individuals, raising the possibility of future personalized therapy.

“We found that using the optimal antihypertensive drug for a particular patient resulted in an average of a 4.4 mm Hg greater reduction of blood pressure compared with a random choice of the other drugs. That is quite a substantial difference, and could be equivalent to adding in another drug,” lead author Johan Sundström, MD, Uppsala (Sweden) University Hospital, told this news organization.

Vishnu Kumar/Thinkstock

“These preliminary findings suggest that some people may be better treated with one antihypertensive drug rather than another. This is opening up the field of hypertension for personalized medicine,” he added.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The authors noted that despite global access to multiple classes of highly effective blood pressure-lowering drugs, only one in four women and one in five men with hypertension reach treatment targets. While most hypertension guidelines advocate combination pharmacotherapy, many patients in routine care continue to be treated with monotherapy, with adverse effects and nonadherence being important clinical problems.

“One drug often does not give enough blood pressure reduction, but patients are often reluctant to up-titrate to two drugs,” Dr. Sundström said. “While we know that the four recommended classes of antihypertensives lower blood pressure equally well on average, we don’t know if their efficacy is the same in individual patients.

“We wondered whether there could be different optimal drugs for different people, and if we could identify the optimal drug for each person then maybe more patients could get to target levels with just one drug,” he said.

The researchers conducted a randomized, double-blind, repeated crossover trial at an outpatient research clinic in Sweden, studying 280 men and women with grade 1 hypertension at low risk for cardiovascular events.

Each participant was scheduled for 2 months’ treatment in random order with each of four different classes of antihypertensive drugs: an ACE inhibitor, lisinopril; an angiotensin II blocker, candesartan; a thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide; a calcium channel blocker, amlodipine.

There were then repeated treatment periods for two drug classes to try to account for any effect of a particular event that might have affected the blood pressure at one point in time. Ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure was measured at the end of each treatment period.

Results showed that variation in systolic blood pressure was large between treatments on average, between participants on average, within participants taking the same treatment, and between treatments in the same participant.

Overall, personalized treatment using the optimal single-drug therapy led to a 4.4–mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure in the trial population than a random choice of any of the other drug classes.

Taking into consideration that lisinopril was found to be on average the most efficacious of the drugs at the selected doses, personalized treatment compared with lisinopril still led to a 3.1–mm Hg improvement in systolic blood pressure.

The researchers noted that the mean additional blood pressure reduction achievable by using the optimal agent was of a magnitude twice that achieved by doubling the dose of a first drug, and more than half that of adding a second drug on average.

While there were only small differences between certain drugs (e.g., candesartan vs. lisinopril; amlodipine vs. hydrochlorothiazide), for all other comparisons tested, the choice was important, with particularly large gains to be made by personalizing the choice between candesartan vs. amlodipine and between lisinopril vs. amlodipine.

In addition, some people showed very large differences in response to different drugs, whereas others did not have much difference at all.
 

How to identify the optimal drug?

“The million-dollar question is how we identify the best drug for each individual patient,” Dr. Sundström said. “This study has opened Pandora’s box. We now need to figure out how to go forward and how we tailor treatment in each patient.”

In the study, the researchers suggest that personalizing therapy could be achieved either by identifying the phenotypic characteristics that are associated with enhanced response to one treatment vs. another or by directly measuring the individual’s responses to a series of treatments to ascertain which is most effective.

Addressing the first scenario, Dr. Sundström explained: “We can analyze the characteristics of patients who did best on each drug. There are many variables we can look at here such as age, diet, baseline blood pressure, exercise levels, smoking status, race, body weight, salt intake, and findings from genetic tests. We are going to try to look into these to see if we can find any predictors of response to various different drugs.”

For the second strategy, he suggested that patients starting pharmacologic therapy could try a few different treatments. “For example, we could give patients two different drugs and ask them to alternate treatment periods with each of them and measure their blood pressure with a home monitoring kit and record adverse effects.”

Nonadherence “is such a big problem with antihypertensives,” he added. “This approach may allow patients to be more empowered when choosing the right treatment, which should help adherence in the longer term.”
 

‘Proof-of-principle’

Commenting on the study in an accompanying editorial, Robert M. Carey, MD, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, wrote: “At this stage, the findings are more theoretical than immediately practical for the implementation of personalized antihypertensive drug therapy, but the study does provide proof-of-principle and the authors suggest a few scenarios in which a personalized approach could be used in the future.”

He said the practical ramifications of personally targeted therapy remain unclear, given that determination of an individual’s response to a series of short test treatments before selecting long-term therapy may be considered too cumbersome, and currently few phenotypic markers are currently available that would be likely to accurately predict the individual response to a particular therapy.

Dr. Carey concluded that the results of this study “encourage the further pursuit of larger randomized trials using similar repeated crossover designs to validate this concept and eventually in trials with longer follow-up data to determine whether there is improvement in long-term clinical outcomes compared with current strategies.”

He added that the results support the possibility that personalized medical treatment of hypertension “may ultimately supplement or even supplant the current method of antihypertensive drug decision-making in the future.”

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council; Kjell and Märta Beijer Foundation; and Anders Wiklöf. Dr. Sundström reported owning stock in Symptoms Europe AB and Anagram Kommunikation AB. Coauthor Emil Hagström, MD, PhD, reported receiving grants from Pfizer and Amgen and personal fees from Amgen, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Amarin, and Novartis. Coauthor Ollie Östlund, PhD, reported fees from Uppsala University paid to his institution, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, for its participation in the PHYSIC trial during the conduct of the study. Dr. Carey reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

In my most recent column, “ ‘They All Laughed When I Spoke of Greedy Doctors,’ ” I attempted to provide a global understanding of some of the economic forces that have made American medicine what it is, how that happened, and why it is still happening.

I did not propose a fix. I have been proposing fixes for more than 30 years, on the pages of JAMA until 1999 and then for this news organization, most recently in 2019 with “Healthcare for All in a Land of Special Interests.”

Where you stand depends a lot on where you sit.

Is this good news or bad news? When William Hubbard was the dean of the University of Michigan School of Medicine in 1969, he said that “an academic medical center is the most efficient energy and resource trapping device that has ever been created” (personal communication, 1969).

To me as a faculty member of an academic medical center for many years, that was great news. We could grow faculty, erect buildings, take the best care of sick people, churn out research papers, mint new physicians and specialists, and get paid well in the process for doing “the Lord’s work.” What’s not to like? At that time, the proportion of the country’s gross national product expended for medical and health care was about 7%. And the predicted life span of an American at birth was 70.5 years.

Is this good news or bad news? In 2021, the proportion of our annual gross domestic product (GDP) consumed by health care was 18.3%, totaling $4.3 trillion, or $12,914 per person. For perspective, in 2021, the median income per capita was $37,638. Because quite a few Americans have very high incomes, the mean income per capita is much higher: $63,444. Predicted life span in 2021 was 76.4 years.

Thus, in a span of 53 years (1969-2022), only 5.9 years of life were gained per person born, for how many trillions of dollars expended? To me as a tax-paying citizen and payer of medical insurance premiums, that is bad news.

Is this good news or bad news? If we compare developed societies globally, our medical system does a whole lot of things very well indeed. But we spend a great deal more than any other country for health care and objectively achieve poorer outcomes. Thus, we are neither efficient nor effective. We keep a lot of workers very busy doing stuff, and they are generally well paid. As a worker, that’s good news; as a manager who values efficiency, it’s bad news indeed.

Is this good news or bad news? We’re the leader at finding money to pay people to do “health care work.” More Americans work in health care than any other field. In 2019, the United States employed some 21,000,000 people doing “health care and social assistance.” Among others, these occupations include physicians, dentists, dental hygienists and assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses, LVNs/LPNs, nursing aides, technologists and technicians, home health aides, respiratory therapists, occupational and speech therapists, social workers, childcare workers, and personal and home care aides. For a patient, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, it is good news to have all those folks available to take care of us when we need it.

So, while I have cringed at the frequent exposés from Roy Poses of what seem to me to be massive societal betrayals by American health care industry giants, it doesn’t have to be that way. Might it still be possible to do well while doing good?
 

A jobs program

Consider such common medical procedures as coronary artery stents or bypass grafts for stable angina (when optimal medical therapy is as good, or better than, and much less expensive); PSAs on asymptomatic men followed by unnecessary surgery for localized cancer; excess surgery for low back pain; and the jobs created by managing the people caught up in medical complications of the obesity epidemic.

Don’t forget the number of people employed simply to “follow the money” within our byzantine cockamamie medical billing system. In 2009, this prompted me to describe the bloated system as a “health care bubble” not unlike Enron, the submarket real estate financing debacle, or the dot-com boom and bust. I warned of the downside of bursting that bubble, particularly lost jobs.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided health insurance to some 35 million Americans who had been uninsured. It retarded health care inflation. But it did nothing to trim administrative costs or very high pay for nonclinical executives, or shareholder profits in those companies that were for-profit, or drug and device prices. Without the support of all those groups, the ACA would never have passed Congress. The ACA has clearly been a mixed blessing.

If any large American constituency were ever serious about reducing the percentage of our GDP expended on health care, we have excellent ways to do that while improving the health and well-being of the American people. But remember, one person’s liability (unnecessary work) is another person’s asset (needed job).
 

The MBAization of medicine

Meanwhile, back at Dean Hubbard’s voracious academic medical center, the high intellect and driven nature of those who are attracted to medicine as a career has had other effects. The resulting organizations reflect not only the glorious calling of caring for the sick and the availability of lots of money to recruit and compensate leaders, but also the necessity to develop strong executive types who won’t be “eaten alive” by the high-powered workforce of demanding physicians and the surrounding environment.

Thus, it came as no great surprise that in its 2021 determination of America’s top 25 Best Large Employers, Forbes included five health care organizations and seven universities. Beating out such giants as NASA, Cisco, Microsoft, Netflix, and Google, the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital was ranked first. Mayo Clinic and Yale University came in third and fifth, respectively, and at the other end of the list were Duke (23), MIT (24), and MD Anderson (25).

My goodness! Well done.

Yet, as a country attempting to be balanced, Warren Buffett’s descriptive entreaty on the 2021 failure of Haven, the Amazon-Chase-Berkshire Hathaway joint initiative, remains troubling. Calling upon Haven to change the U.S. health care system, Buffet said, “We learned a lot about the difficulty of changing around an industry that’s 17% of the GDP. We were fighting a tapeworm in the American economy, and the tapeworm won.” They had failed to tame the American health care cost beast.

I am on record as despising the “MBAization” of American medicine. Unfairly, I blamed a professional and technical discipline for what I considered misuse. I hereby repent and renounce my earlier condemnations.
 

Take it all over?

Here’s an idea: If you can’t beat them, join them.

Medical care is important, especially for acute illnesses and injuries, early cancer therapy, and many chronic conditions. But the real determinants of health writ large are social: wealth, education, housing, nutritious food, childcare, climate, clean air and water, meaningful employment, safety from violence, exercise schemes, vaccinations, and so on.

Why doesn’t the American medical-industrial complex simply bestow the label of “health care” on all health-related social determinants? Take it all over. Good “health care” jobs for everyone. Medical professionals will still be blamed for the low health quality and poor outcome scores, the main social determinants of health over which we have no control or influence.

Let that tapeworm grow to encompass all social determinants of health, and measure results by length and quality of life, national human happiness, and, of course, jobs. We can do it. Let that bubble glow. Party time.

And that’s the way it is. That’s my opinion.

George Lundberg, MD, is editor-in-chief at Cancer Commons, president of the Lundberg Institute, executive advisor at Cureus, and a clinical professor of pathology at Northwestern University. Previously, he served as editor-in-chief of JAMA (including 10 specialty journals), American Medical News, and Medscape.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

Vaccines for the world’s most deadly diseases, like cancer and heart disease, will likely be ready by 2030 and could save millions of lives, according to the top doctor at one of the world’s leading drug companies.

The announcement is yet another sign of what many are calling “the golden age” of vaccine development, which is largely credited to the pandemic’s use of mRNA technology to create COVID-19 vaccines.

“I think what we have learned in recent months is that if you ever thought that mRNA was just for infectious diseases, or just for COVID, the evidence now is that that’s absolutely not the case,” Moderna Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton, MD, PhD, told The Guardian. “It can be applied to all sorts of disease areas; we are in cancer, infectious disease, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, rare disease. We have studies in all of those areas, and they have all shown tremendous promise.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently designated two new Moderna vaccines as breakthrough therapies: a shot that prevents respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older people and a shot that helps prevent the recurrence of melanoma. The FDA’s breakthrough designation is given when a new treatment’s early trial results are substantially better than an existing therapy.

The mRNA vaccine technology that made headlines for its role in COVID-19 vaccines works by teaching the body how to make a specific protein to help the immune system prevent or target a certain disease.

Dr. Burton anticipates that mRNA technology will result in breakthroughs such as a cancer vaccine that can be personalized based on the features of a specific tumor.

“I think we will have mRNA-based therapies for rare diseases that were previously undruggable, and I think that 10 years from now, we will be approaching a world where you truly can identify the genetic cause of a disease and, with relative simplicity, go and edit that out and repair it using mRNA-based technology,” he said. 

The Moderna executive made the statements before its annual update on its vaccine pipeline projects, which the company calls “Vaccines Day.” The Massachusetts-based drugmaker said it has given someone the first dose of a “next-generation” COVID-19 vaccine in a phase III trial, has made progress on a Lyme disease shot, and is developing a vaccine for the highly contagious norovirus.

In all, Moderna expects “six major vaccine product launches in the next few years,” the company said in a statement, adding that it expects the COVID-19 booster market alone to be valued at $15 billion.

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

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

You and me and baby makes 10,003

If you were a virus hunter, looking for your next big virus discovery, where would you go? The wholesale seafood market in Wuhan? A gathering of unmasked anti-vaxxers in the heartland of America? The frozen snot fields of northwest Siberia?

Comstock/Thinkstock

How about babies? Well, it’s too late now, because that’s what Dennis Sandris Nielsen, PhD, of the University of Copenhagen, and his associates did, and they hit the mother lode. Actually, it was more like the infant load, if we’re being honest here.

“We found an exceptional number of unknown viruses in the faeces of these babies,” Dr. Nielsen said in a written statement from the university. (The study was published in Nature Microbiology, so we get the English spelling of feces.)

The investigators mapped the gut “viromes” of 647 healthy Danish 1-year-old children over the course of 5 years and found 10,000 species of viruses distributed across 248 different viral families, of which only 16 were already known. Incredible stuff, but then things took a turn for the cute. “The researchers named the remaining 232 unknown viral families after the children whose diapers made the study possible. As a result, new viral families include names like Sylvesterviridae, Rigmorviridae and Tristanviridae,” the university said.

About 90% of the viruses found in the feces are bacterial viruses, aka bacteriophages, which have bacteria as their hosts and don’t attack the children’s cells, so they don’t cause disease. The other 10%, however, are eukaryotic: They use human cells as hosts, so they can be either friend or foe. “It is thought-provoking that all children run around with 10-20 of these virus types that infect human cells. So, there is a constant viral infection taking place, which apparently doesn’t make them sick,” Dr. Nielsen said.

Doesn’t make them sick? Riiiight. The thought that this gives rise to now? People love babies. Everyone wants to pick up the baby. Now we know why. Because the viruses want us to! Well, those cute little faces aren’t fooling us anymore. No more babies for us. Everyone should stay away from babies and their evil little eukaryotic viruses. STOP THE BABIES!

[Editor’s note: After a short timeout, we explained to the staff that the human species actually needs babies for its survival. They calmed down, picked up their crayons, and quietly went back to work.]

Fooled them. _{Stop the babies!}

At least someone out there appreciates hospital food

Life in Alaska is not for the meek. It’s dark half the year. Summer is 3 weeks in July. And somehow, there’s a moose in line ahead of you at the doctor’s office. To make matters worse, it’s arguing about insurance. “What do you mean, you’ve heard the Moo Cross Moo Shield joke before?”

Jean Beaufort/PublicDomainPictures.net

One might expect that Providence Alaska Health Park, located near downtown Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska by a massive margin, might be safe from ungulate invasion. Nope. In recent days, a young moose has taken to hanging around Providence campus, and it just could not find anything to eat. Remember, it may be early April, but this is Alaska. It’s still winter there. The ground’s still covered in snow.

Eventually, the gears in our young moose friend’s mind turned and it settled on a course of action: “Hey, those are some nice-looking plants behind that door over there. …” And that’s how Providence Alaska Health ended up with a moose munching on decorative potted plants in the hospital lobby.

Funnily enough, the moose didn’t even make a big scene. It just walked through the automatic doors and started chowing down. Security only found out because a tenant called them. Naturally though, once security made the announcement that a massive wild animal had been spotted in the building, the lobby was evacuated. … What do you mean, half the hospital came around to see it? Apparently, even though Alaskans have to fight moose herds on their daily commute, a lot of people wanted to see our moose friend do its thing.

“That’s crazy,” a woman in scrubs said in a video as she snapped a photo with her phone.

“This is the best. Like, what’s the code for this?” asked another bystander.

Despite security’s best efforts to shoo the moose out with barricades and offers of tasty branches, our furry friend left of its own volition, presumably irritated that his breakfast had become a spectator sport. But it didn’t go far. It hung around the front drive for a while, then went around the back of the building for a nap. What has four hooves and still doesn’t give a crap? Bob Moose-o! How you doing?
 

That click sounded stressed

How can people tell that you’re stressed? Maybe you get irritable and a little snappy. Some people have an inability to concentrate or focus. Eating that muffin when you weren’t really hungry could be a sign you’re not relaxed.

Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

Did you know that your computer can be an indicator of your stress levels?

We tend to be working when we’re using computers, right? That can be a stressor in itself. Well, some researchers at ETH Zürich decided to have a look at the situation. Surprisingly, at least to us, one in three Swiss employees experience workplace stress, which makes us wonder what the percentage is in this country.

The Swiss researchers developed a model that tells how stressed someone is just by the way they use their computer mouse or type. The results of their study showed that those who were stressed clicked and tapped differently than participants who were more relaxed.

Stressed people click “more often and less precisely and cover longer distances on the screen,” while the relaxed take “shorter, more direct routes to reach their destination and take more time doing so,” study author Mara Nägelin explained in a written statement from ETH (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, or Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) Zürich.

Ever find when you’re frustrated and in a rush you end up making more mistakes? Same deal. Coauthor Jasmine Kerr noted that “increased levels of stress negatively impact our brain’s ability to process information.” Which totally is going to affect how we move.

Hopefully, these results can give insight to companies on how stressed their employees are and the effect it has on their work performance, eventually leading to, guess what, more research on how to alleviate workplace stress in general, which can benefit us all.

So if you find yourself in the office working on your computer like it’s a game of Perfection and time is running out, take a beat. Maybe try a stress-relieving breathing technique. Nonstressed people, according to the study, take fewer and longer pauses on their computers. Perfection on the job may mean relaxing first.

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
 

CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.

They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Look beyond traditional risk factors

“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release. 

“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.

Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.

Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.

The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.

“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.

“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
 

No one-size-fits-all approach

The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.

It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.

“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.

“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.

Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.

They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
 

CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.

They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Look beyond traditional risk factors

“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release. 

“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.

Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.

Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.

The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.

“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.

“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
 

No one-size-fits-all approach

The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.

It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.

“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.

“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.

Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.

They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
 

CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.

They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Look beyond traditional risk factors

“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release. 

“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.

Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.

Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.

The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.

“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.

“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
 

No one-size-fits-all approach

The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.

It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.

“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.

“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.

Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.

They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.

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

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).

The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.

The 16-page guideline was published online  in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
 

Specific skill set

IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.

They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.

“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.

“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.

The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.

It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.

A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.

“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.

“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.

In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.

Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.

The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.

Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).

The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.

The 16-page guideline was published online  in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
 

Specific skill set

IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.

They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.

“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.

“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.

The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.

It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.

A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.

“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.

“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.

In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.

Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.

The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.

Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).

The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.

The 16-page guideline was published online  in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
 

Specific skill set

IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.

They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.

“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.

“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.

The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.

It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.

A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.

“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.

“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.

In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.

Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.

The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.

Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

Among adults with diabetes but no history of heart failure (HF), taking a NSAID – even for only a month – sharply raises the risk of an HF hospitalization, suggests a prospective, controlled study.
 

Certain subgroups may account for much of the excess risk, the results suggest, including the very elderly, patients with uncontrolled diabetes, those prescribed an NSAID for the first time, and patients already taking both a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) and a diuretic.

Such patients with a firm indication for NSAIDs potentially could “be the ones benefiting most from closer follow-up, reduced dosage, or other mitigation strategies,” Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Holt, of Copenhagen University Hospital and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, is lead author on the analysis of Danish registry data published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. He presented essentially the same results in preliminary form at the 2022 annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

HF hospitalizations linked to NSAIDs, the published report notes, are often attributed to symptoms from temporary fluid overload, often without worsening cardiac function, that stem from the drugs’ renal effects.

“One could speculate,” Dr. Holt said, that such HF events might be less severe and even associated with better outcomes, compared with other forms of heart failure.

But the current analysis provides a hint to the contrary, he observed. The 5-year mortality was similar for patients with HF linked to NSAIDs and those with other forms of HF, “which could suggest that NSAID-associated heart failure is more than transient fluid overload.”

The drugs may promote HF through direct effects on the heart by any of several proposed mechanisms, including “induction of arrhythmias and heart fibrosis, vasoconstriction, subclinical inflammation, and blood pressure elevation,” Dr. Holt said.

The current study doesn’t determine whether NSAID-associated HF stems from transient fluid overload or direct cardiac effects, but it’s “most likely both.”

In other limitations, the analysis is unable to “reliably explore” whether promotion of HF is an NSAID class effect, a “clinically relevant” point given the drugs’ varying effects on cardiovascular risk, states an accompanying editorial. Nor was it able to determine whether the drugs exert a dose-response effect on HF risk, noted Hassan Khan, MD, PhD, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, Ky., and Setor K. Kunutsor, MD, PhD, University of Leicester (England).

Still, “given the well-established relationship between the use of NSAIDs and increased HF, these findings are not unexpected because type 2 diabetes is also a major risk factor for HF.”

But it may be “premature to issue guideline recommendations based on a single observational study,” the editorialists wrote. “Further robust clinical trial evidence is needed to replicate these results and investigate the relationship of the type and dose of NSAIDs with HF risk. However, it should be realized that short-term or long-term use of NSAIDs may be detrimental to cardiovascular health.”

The analysis covered 23,308 patients from throughout Denmark with a type 2 diabetes diagnosis and no HF history who experienced a first HF hospitalization; their age averaged 76 years and 39% were women.

They served as their own controls; their NSAID exposures at two 28-day periods preceding the HF event, the one immediately before and the other preceding it by 56 days, were compared as the index and control periods, respectively.

Exposure to NSAIDs was defined as obtaining a prescription for celecoxib, diclofenac, ibuprofen, or naproxen, “as these are NSAIDs used primarily in Denmark,” the report states.

The odds ratios for HF hospitalization associated with NSAID exposure within 28 days preceding the event were 1.43 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63) overall, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.16-1.71) for an NSAID given on top of both RASi and diuretics, 1.68 (95% CI, 1.00-2.88) for patients with elevated hemoglobin A1c, 1.78 (95% CI, 1.39-2.28) for those 80 or older, and 2.71 (95% CI, 1.78-4.23) for those with prior NSAID use.

That NSAID use and diabetes are each associated with increased risk for HF is well established, Dr. Holt observed. Yet the drugs had been prescribed to 16% of patients in the study.

“One of the more surprising findings, to me, was the quite substantial use of prescribed NSAIDs in a population of patients with diabetes, a patient group with a well-established cardiovascular risk,” he said.

“This patient group is only growing, so emphasis on the possible associations between even short-term NSAID use and incident heart failure is probably timely and perhaps needed.”

Dr. Holt and the study were supported by grants from Ib Mogens Kristiansens Almene Fond, Helsefonden, Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsen Fond, Marie og M.B. Richters Fond, and the Dagmar Marshalls Fond. Dr. Khan and Dr. Kunutsor reported no relevant relationships.

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

Atrial fibrillation (AFib) is a known and serious side effect of some cancer treatments, but it is underreported in cancer drug trials, French investigators said in a new report.

As a result, oncologists likely underestimate the risk of atrial fibrillation when new cancer drugs come to market, they said.

The team came to these conclusions after conducting a meta-analysis of 191 phase 2 or 3 clinical trials that included 26,604 patients. The trials investigated 15 anticancer drugs used as monotherapy.

The meta-analysis showed that the annualized incidence rate of AFib ranged from 0.26 cases per 100 person-years – about the same as placebo – to 4.92 cases, a nearly 20 times’ higher risk.

Rates were the highest for ibrutinib, clofarabine, and ponatinib.

The study was published in JACC: CardioOncology, a journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Actual rates of AFib are probably higher than what they found in this meta-analysis, the authors suspect, because most oncology trials only identify and report severe cases of AFib that require immediate medical attention. Less severe cases can also lead to serious complications, including strokes, but they go unreported, said the investigators, led by Joachim Alexandre, MD, PhD, a member of the cardio-oncology program at the University of Caen Normandie Hospital Center, France.

“These findings suggest a global and systemic underreporting and/or underidentification of cardiotoxicity among cancer clinical trial participants,” and AFib reporting is “particularly affected,” they said.
 

Call for routine monitoring

The root of the problem is the lack of routine rhythm monitoring in cancer trials. This in turn “leads to a significant underestimation of AFib incidence” and rates “markedly lower than those observed among real-life” patients, the authors pointed out.

To address the issue, Dr. Alexandre and his team called for routine cardiac monitoring in trials to capture the true incidence of AFib and to “clearly define which anticancer drugs are significantly associated” with the condition.

Approached for comment, Michael G. Fradley, MD, medical director of cardio-oncology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, agreed.

“It’s incredibly important” to “identify the drugs most likely to cause arrhythmias and determine the best prevention and treatment strategies. Unfortunately, systematic evaluation of arrhythmias in cancer clinical trials has often been lacking,” Dr. Fradley told this news organization.

The investigators said the issue is particularly pressing for drugs known to be associated with AFib. For Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, for instance, they call for standardize AFib detection in trials “not only on 12-lead ECGs” for symptomatic AFib but also with “longer-term ambulatory monitoring or insertable cardiac monitors to detect subclinical AFib.”

Dr. Fradley said there might also be a role for newer wearable technologies that can detect arrhythmias through a skin patch or by other means.
 

Details of the meta-analysis

The investigators pulled the 191 studies they used in their meta-analysis from the ClinicalTrials.gov database.

The trials covered anticancer drugs used as monotherapy up to Sept. 18, 2020. Almost half were randomized trials, but only seven had placebo arms. Trials involving hematologic cancers outnumbered those involving solid tumors.

The 15 drugs examined were dacarbazine, abiraterone, clofarabine, azacitidine, ibrutinib, nilotinib, ponatinib, midostaurin, ipilimumab, aldesleukin, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, rituximab, bortezomib, and docetaxel.

The annualized incidence AFib rates per 100 person-years were 4.92 cases for ibrutinib, 2.38 cases for clofarabine, and 2.35 cases for ponatinib.

The lowest AFib rates were for ipilimumab (0.26 cases), rituximab (0.27), and nilotinib (0.29).

For placebo, the annualized rate was 0.25 cases per 100 person-years.

The team said caution is warranted regarding their estimations for clofarabine and midostaurin (0.65 cases) because no trials were registered after September 2009, when adverse event reporting became mandatory. As a result, estimates may be artificially low.

One of the limits of the study is that it focused on monotherapy in an age when combination treatment is generally the rule for cancer, the authors noted.

No external funding was reported for the study. Dr. Alexandre has received honoraria for presentations and consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bioserenity.
 

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

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies is associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events, according to a new study.

The findings point to possible new approaches to risk stratification and the potential for new therapeutic targets in heart disease.

“In this study of the general population, we found that two antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with an increased risk of having a serious cardiovascular event over a follow-up of 8 years,” coauthor Jason Knight, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“If confirmed in further studies, these findings could be used to identify a subgroup of patients who need more careful monitoring and more aggressive risk-factor modification, and if the increased risk linked to these antibodies is high enough, it may also justify preemptive treatments such as the anticoagulants that are routinely used in antiphospholipid syndrome,” Dr. Knight said.

“The long-term vision is that we may identify some people in the general population who would benefit from treating the immune system for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease instead of, or in addition to, using typical cardiovascular medications,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Individuals with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases have a greater risk for cardiovascular events than expected based on traditional cardiovascular risk factors, with mechanisms proposed to explain this risk including inflammation-mediated disruption of vascular integrity and activation of platelets and coagulation pathways, the authors explained. However, the role of autoantibodies remains unclear.

They noted that antiphospholipid antibodies can activate endothelial cells, platelets, and neutrophils, and some patients with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies can develop antiphospholipid syndrome – an acquired thromboinflammatory disease characterized by arterial, venous, and microvascular thrombotic events and obstetric complications.

Cross-sectional studies have shown that antiphospholipid antibodies are acutely present in up to 17.4% of patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, and small cohort studies have suggested that such antibodies may be present in 1%-12% of seemingly healthy individuals. However, the impact of sex, race, and ethnicity on the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies and their association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is not known.

The researchers conducted the current study to look at the association between antiphospholipid antibodies and future risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

They analyzed data from 2,427 participants in the population-based Dallas Heart Study who had no history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or autoimmune diseases requiring immunosuppressive medications at the time of blood sampling at study entry in 2007-2009.

Eight different types of antiphospholipid antibodies were measured, and data on cardiovascular events over the next 8 years was recorded.

Results showed that 14.5% of the cohort tested positive for one of these antiphospholipid antibodies at the start of the study, with approximately one-third of those detected at a moderate or high titer.

The researchers also found that the IgA isotypes of two antiphospholipid antibodies – anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein – were associated with future atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

After adjustment for other known risk factors, individuals testing positive for the IgA isotype of anticardiolipin had an almost five times increased risk (hazard ratio, 4.92) of the primary endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death); while those testing positive for anti–beta₂-glycoprotein had an almost three times increased risk (HR, 2.91).

Furthermore, there was what appeared to be a dose effect. People with the highest levels of these antibodies also had the highest risk for cardiovascular events, with up to an almost 10-fold increased risk with the higher level of anticardiolipin. 

Dr. Knight said that more research into the IgA isotypes of these antiphospholipid antibodies is needed.

“Most of the mechanistic work in the antiphospholipid syndrome field has focused on IgG antiphospholipid antibodies. While we commonly find these IgA antibodies in patients with APS, the extent to which they contribute to disease has not been firmly established,” he said. “The fact that IgA was the primary hit in our unbiased screen suggests that there is more to the story and we need to better understand the implications of having these antibodies in circulation, and what specific problems they may be causing.”

Noting that antiphospholipid antibodies can form transiently after certain situations, such as infections, Dr. Knight said that further studies were needed with repeat blood testing to detect the chronic presence of the antibodies.

He added that information of venous thromboses was not available in this study and “perhaps some of the other antibodies might have stood out if we were able to analyze for different outcomes.”

This study was supported by a Pfizer Aspire Award. Dr. Knight reported receiving research funding and consulting fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies is associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events, according to a new study.

The findings point to possible new approaches to risk stratification and the potential for new therapeutic targets in heart disease.

“In this study of the general population, we found that two antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with an increased risk of having a serious cardiovascular event over a follow-up of 8 years,” coauthor Jason Knight, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“If confirmed in further studies, these findings could be used to identify a subgroup of patients who need more careful monitoring and more aggressive risk-factor modification, and if the increased risk linked to these antibodies is high enough, it may also justify preemptive treatments such as the anticoagulants that are routinely used in antiphospholipid syndrome,” Dr. Knight said.

“The long-term vision is that we may identify some people in the general population who would benefit from treating the immune system for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease instead of, or in addition to, using typical cardiovascular medications,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Individuals with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases have a greater risk for cardiovascular events than expected based on traditional cardiovascular risk factors, with mechanisms proposed to explain this risk including inflammation-mediated disruption of vascular integrity and activation of platelets and coagulation pathways, the authors explained. However, the role of autoantibodies remains unclear.

They noted that antiphospholipid antibodies can activate endothelial cells, platelets, and neutrophils, and some patients with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies can develop antiphospholipid syndrome – an acquired thromboinflammatory disease characterized by arterial, venous, and microvascular thrombotic events and obstetric complications.

Cross-sectional studies have shown that antiphospholipid antibodies are acutely present in up to 17.4% of patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, and small cohort studies have suggested that such antibodies may be present in 1%-12% of seemingly healthy individuals. However, the impact of sex, race, and ethnicity on the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies and their association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is not known.

The researchers conducted the current study to look at the association between antiphospholipid antibodies and future risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

They analyzed data from 2,427 participants in the population-based Dallas Heart Study who had no history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or autoimmune diseases requiring immunosuppressive medications at the time of blood sampling at study entry in 2007-2009.

Eight different types of antiphospholipid antibodies were measured, and data on cardiovascular events over the next 8 years was recorded.

Results showed that 14.5% of the cohort tested positive for one of these antiphospholipid antibodies at the start of the study, with approximately one-third of those detected at a moderate or high titer.

The researchers also found that the IgA isotypes of two antiphospholipid antibodies – anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein – were associated with future atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

After adjustment for other known risk factors, individuals testing positive for the IgA isotype of anticardiolipin had an almost five times increased risk (hazard ratio, 4.92) of the primary endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death); while those testing positive for anti–beta₂-glycoprotein had an almost three times increased risk (HR, 2.91).

Furthermore, there was what appeared to be a dose effect. People with the highest levels of these antibodies also had the highest risk for cardiovascular events, with up to an almost 10-fold increased risk with the higher level of anticardiolipin. 

Dr. Knight said that more research into the IgA isotypes of these antiphospholipid antibodies is needed.

“Most of the mechanistic work in the antiphospholipid syndrome field has focused on IgG antiphospholipid antibodies. While we commonly find these IgA antibodies in patients with APS, the extent to which they contribute to disease has not been firmly established,” he said. “The fact that IgA was the primary hit in our unbiased screen suggests that there is more to the story and we need to better understand the implications of having these antibodies in circulation, and what specific problems they may be causing.”

Noting that antiphospholipid antibodies can form transiently after certain situations, such as infections, Dr. Knight said that further studies were needed with repeat blood testing to detect the chronic presence of the antibodies.

He added that information of venous thromboses was not available in this study and “perhaps some of the other antibodies might have stood out if we were able to analyze for different outcomes.”

This study was supported by a Pfizer Aspire Award. Dr. Knight reported receiving research funding and consulting fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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

The presence of antiphospholipid antibodies is associated with an increased risk for future cardiovascular events, according to a new study.

The findings point to possible new approaches to risk stratification and the potential for new therapeutic targets in heart disease.

“In this study of the general population, we found that two antiphospholipid antibodies were associated with an increased risk of having a serious cardiovascular event over a follow-up of 8 years,” coauthor Jason Knight, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

“If confirmed in further studies, these findings could be used to identify a subgroup of patients who need more careful monitoring and more aggressive risk-factor modification, and if the increased risk linked to these antibodies is high enough, it may also justify preemptive treatments such as the anticoagulants that are routinely used in antiphospholipid syndrome,” Dr. Knight said.

“The long-term vision is that we may identify some people in the general population who would benefit from treating the immune system for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease instead of, or in addition to, using typical cardiovascular medications,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Individuals with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases have a greater risk for cardiovascular events than expected based on traditional cardiovascular risk factors, with mechanisms proposed to explain this risk including inflammation-mediated disruption of vascular integrity and activation of platelets and coagulation pathways, the authors explained. However, the role of autoantibodies remains unclear.

They noted that antiphospholipid antibodies can activate endothelial cells, platelets, and neutrophils, and some patients with persistently circulating antiphospholipid antibodies can develop antiphospholipid syndrome – an acquired thromboinflammatory disease characterized by arterial, venous, and microvascular thrombotic events and obstetric complications.

Cross-sectional studies have shown that antiphospholipid antibodies are acutely present in up to 17.4% of patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, and small cohort studies have suggested that such antibodies may be present in 1%-12% of seemingly healthy individuals. However, the impact of sex, race, and ethnicity on the prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies and their association with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is not known.

The researchers conducted the current study to look at the association between antiphospholipid antibodies and future risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

They analyzed data from 2,427 participants in the population-based Dallas Heart Study who had no history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or autoimmune diseases requiring immunosuppressive medications at the time of blood sampling at study entry in 2007-2009.

Eight different types of antiphospholipid antibodies were measured, and data on cardiovascular events over the next 8 years was recorded.

Results showed that 14.5% of the cohort tested positive for one of these antiphospholipid antibodies at the start of the study, with approximately one-third of those detected at a moderate or high titer.

The researchers also found that the IgA isotypes of two antiphospholipid antibodies – anticardiolipin and anti-beta-2 glycoprotein – were associated with future atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

After adjustment for other known risk factors, individuals testing positive for the IgA isotype of anticardiolipin had an almost five times increased risk (hazard ratio, 4.92) of the primary endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or cardiovascular death); while those testing positive for anti–beta₂-glycoprotein had an almost three times increased risk (HR, 2.91).

Furthermore, there was what appeared to be a dose effect. People with the highest levels of these antibodies also had the highest risk for cardiovascular events, with up to an almost 10-fold increased risk with the higher level of anticardiolipin. 

Dr. Knight said that more research into the IgA isotypes of these antiphospholipid antibodies is needed.

“Most of the mechanistic work in the antiphospholipid syndrome field has focused on IgG antiphospholipid antibodies. While we commonly find these IgA antibodies in patients with APS, the extent to which they contribute to disease has not been firmly established,” he said. “The fact that IgA was the primary hit in our unbiased screen suggests that there is more to the story and we need to better understand the implications of having these antibodies in circulation, and what specific problems they may be causing.”

Noting that antiphospholipid antibodies can form transiently after certain situations, such as infections, Dr. Knight said that further studies were needed with repeat blood testing to detect the chronic presence of the antibodies.

He added that information of venous thromboses was not available in this study and “perhaps some of the other antibodies might have stood out if we were able to analyze for different outcomes.”

This study was supported by a Pfizer Aspire Award. Dr. Knight reported receiving research funding and consulting fees from Jazz Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

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