User login
Cardiology News is an independent news source that provides cardiologists with timely and relevant news and commentary about clinical developments and the impact of health care policy on cardiology and the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is the online destination and multimedia properties of Cardiology News, the independent news publication for cardiologists. Cardiology news is the leading source of news and commentary about clinical developments in cardiology as well as health care policy and regulations that affect the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is owned by Frontline Medical Communications.
Apixaban outmatches rivaroxaban in patients with AFib and valvular heart disease
Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.
The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.
“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
Study results
Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).
Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.
The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.
“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
Head-to-head trial needed to change practice
Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”
Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.
“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”
Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.
The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.
Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.
“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.
On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.
More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.
The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.
“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
Study results
Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).
Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.
The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.
“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
Head-to-head trial needed to change practice
Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”
Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.
“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”
Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.
The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.
Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.
“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.
On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.
More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban cut risks nearly in half, suggesting that clinicians should consider these new data when choosing an anticoagulant, reported lead author Ghadeer K. Dawwas, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues.
In the new retrospective study involving almost 20,000 patients, Dr. Dawwas and her colleagues “emulated a target trial” using private insurance claims from Optum’s deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database. The cohort was narrowed from a screened population of 58,210 patients with concurrent AFib and VHD to 9,947 new apixaban users who could be closely matched with 9,947 new rivaroxaban users. Covariates included provider specialty, type of VHD, demographic characteristics, measures of health care use, baseline use of medications, and baseline comorbidities.
The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of systemic embolism and ischemic stroke, while the primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding.
“Although several ongoing trials aim to compare apixaban with warfarin in patients with AFib and VHD, none of these trials will directly compare apixaban and rivaroxaban,” the investigators wrote. Their report is in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Dr. Dawwas and colleagues previously showed that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were safer and more effective than warfarin in the same patient population. Comparing apixaban and rivaroxaban – the two most common DOACs – was the next logical step, Dr. Dawwas said in an interview.
Study results
Compared with rivaroxaban, patients who received apixaban had a 43% reduced risk of stroke or embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.80). Apixaban’s ability to protect against bleeding appeared even more pronounced, with a 49% reduced risk over rivaroxaban (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.62).
Comparing the two agents on an absolute basis, apixaban reduced risk of embolism or stroke by 0.2% within the first 6 months of treatment initiation, and 1.1% within the first year of initiation. At the same time points, absolute risk reductions for bleeding were 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively.
The investigators noted that their results held consistent in an alternative analysis that considered separate types of VHD.
“Based on the results from our analysis, we showed that apixaban is effective and safe in patients with atrial fibrillation and valvular heart diseases,” Dr. Dawwas said.
Head-to-head trial needed to change practice
Christopher M. Bianco, DO, associate professor of medicine at West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, said the findings “add to the growing body of literature,” but “a head-to-head trial would be necessary to make a definitive change to clinical practice.”
Dr. Bianco, who recently conducted a retrospective analysis of apixaban and rivaroxaban that found no difference in safety and efficacy among a different patient population, said these kinds of studies are helpful in generating hypotheses, but they can’t account for all relevant clinical factors.
“There are just so many things that go into the decision-making process of [prescribing] apixaban and rivaroxaban,” he said. “Even though [Dr. Dawwas and colleagues] used propensity matching, you’re never going to be able to sort that out with a retrospective analysis.”
Specifically, Dr. Bianco noted that the findings did not include dose data. This is a key gap, he said, considering how often real-world datasets have shown that providers underdose DOACs for a number of unaccountable reasons, and how frequently patients exhibit poor adherence.
The study also lacked detail concerning the degree of renal dysfunction, which can determine drug eligibility, Dr. Bianco said. Furthermore, attempts to stratify patients based on thrombosis and bleeding risk were likely “insufficient,” he added.
Dr. Bianco also cautioned that the investigators defined valvular heart disease as any valve-related disease of any severity. In contrast, previous studies have generally restricted valvular heart disease to patients with mitral stenosis or prosthetic valves.
“This is definitely not the traditional definition of valvular heart disease, so the title is a little bit misleading in that sense, although they certainly do disclose that in the methods,” Dr. Bianco said.
On a more positive note, he highlighted the size of the patient population, and the real-world data, which included many patients who would be excluded from clinical trials.
More broadly, the study helps drive research forward, Dr. Bianco concluded; namely, by attracting financial support for a more powerful head-to-head trial that drug makers are unlikely to fund due to inherent market risk.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Takeda, Spark, Sanofi, and others. Dr. Bianco disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Screening gaps miss childhood heart problems
People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.
Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.
“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
Early consequences
To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.
Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.
Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).
The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).
Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.
About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.
Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.
The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.
Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.
“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
Possible missed cases
As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.
“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.
While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.
Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.
Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.
Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.
“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
Early consequences
To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.
Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.
Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).
The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).
Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.
About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.
Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.
The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.
Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.
“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
Possible missed cases
As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.
“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.
While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.
Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.
Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with a rare genetic condition that causes extremely elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) may miss out on decades of treatment because of a lack of lipid screening in childhood, researchers reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The condition, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), raises the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) as early as the first decade of life.
Routine screening for FH is uncommon, however, the researchers said. Lack of familiarity with guidelines and limited access to lipid specialists have been cited as possible reasons for inconsistent screening practices.
“These findings and recent improvement in lipid lowering therapies make a compelling case for rigorous compliance with AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children with a family history of FH or ASCVD at age 2,” study coauthor Mary P. McGowan, MD, chief medical officer of the Family Heart Foundation, said in a statement about the new study.
Early consequences
To characterize patients with homozygous FH, Dr. McGowan and her colleagues examined data from 67 participants in the CASCADE-FH registry. The Family Heart Foundation created the registry in 2013, and 40 medical centers in the United States contribute data to the repository. The researchers had access to data about patients with homozygous FH from 20 centers in the registry.
Dr. McGowan’s group compared 16 patients with homozygous FH who enrolled in the registry when they were children and 51 patients who were adults at the time of their enrollment.
Patients enrolled as children had a median age at diagnosis of 2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3.5), whereas patients enrolled as adults had a median age at diagnosis of 12.6 years (IQR, 4.1-26.5).
The median untreated level of LDL-C in those enrolled as children was 776 mg/dL (IQR, 704-892). Among those enrolled as adults, it was 533 mg/dL (IQR, 467-702).
Approximately 19% of those enrolled as children had evidence of aortic valve stenosis, and 43.8% had evidence of ASCVD. The median age at onset of ASCVD was 8.9 years. One child was diagnosed with ASCVD at age 2 years and underwent liver transplant at age 4 years. Another was diagnosed with the condition at age 3 years and underwent liver transplant at age 8 years. Two children underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at ages 6 years and 14 years. Five participants underwent liver transplant before age 18 years.
About 56% of participants who enrolled as children had xanthomas, or fat deposits in tendons, and none had corneal arcus — a gray-white line of fat deposits around the edge of the cornea, both of which can indicate homozygous FH in children.
Treatment reduced LDL-C substantially, but only 25% of children achieved goal levels of cholesterol, the researchers reported. Patients who received more lipid-lowering therapies had a better chance of reaching their target levels, they found.
The data raise “the possibility that only children with the most severe phenotypes are diagnosed before adulthood,” the researchers said.
Clinical diagnosis of homozygous FH can be based on LDL-C levels, family history, and the presence of xanthomas, the researchers noted. Many children do not have physical findings, however, and a lipid panel or genetic testing may be necessary.
“There is a clear need to implement universal screening” to identify all children with homozygous FH and heterozygous FH, a less severe and more common form of FH, Dr. McGowan said.
Possible missed cases
As many as 1 in 250 people may have heterozygous FH, and 1 in 300,000 people may have homozygous FH, according to estimates. Patients with homozygous FH have two FH genes, one from each parent. In patients with homozygous FH, levels of LDL-C levels typically range between 400 and 1,000 mg/dL without treatment, which is four to 10 times higher than normal concentrations of the blood fat, according to the Family Heart Foundation.
“This study adds to a growing body of literature – including our own work – demonstrating that recommended universal screening occurs in barely 1 in 5 children. This means some patients are not being recognized as having treatable diseases,” said Justin H. Berger, MD, PhD, a pediatric cardiologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Even among children who are at the highest risk for early onset adult-type heart disease, only a quarter to two-thirds receive recommended screening, said Dr. Berger, who was not a member of the study team.
While Dr. Berger advocates universal lipid screening, improving screening rates in practice probably isn’t as simple as telling clinicians to screen more, he said. “Increasing testing will increase health care spending and the burden on busy primary care providers without addressing who will subsequently evaluate and manage children with abnormal lipid screening results,” Dr. Berger said.
Instead, clinicians may want to focus on screening patients who are at risk, which “could have dramatic benefits for their life-long cardiovascular health,” he said.
Dr. McGowan disclosed ties to Abbott and Regeneron, and her coauthors disclosed ties to Esperion Therapeutics and research funding from Regeneron and REGENXBIO. Dr. Berger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAP 2022
Are doctors savers or spenders?
In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.
Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.
Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.
For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.
So just how do physicians stack up financially?
Habits of physician super savers
Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.
For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.
When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.
When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.
Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.
Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
Barriers to wealth
When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.
“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.
When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).
“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
What’s your financial grade?
Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.
More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.
“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.
Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.
Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.
For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.
So just how do physicians stack up financially?
Habits of physician super savers
Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.
For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.
When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.
When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.
Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.
Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
Barriers to wealth
When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.
“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.
When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).
“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
What’s your financial grade?
Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.
More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.
“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a poll that ran from August 30 to Sept. 21, conducted by Medscape, physicians were asked if they lived within their means. They were asked whether they pay their bills on time, save at least 20% of their monthly income toward retirement, pay down student loan debt, and contribute to their kids’ college savings or a rainy-day emergency fund.
Medscape polled 468 U.S. physicians and 159 living outside of the United States. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. respondents report living within their means, while only 11% said they don’t.
Medscape’s Physician Wealth & Debt Report 2022 similarly reported that of 13,000 physicians in more than 29 specialties, 94% said they live at or below their means.
For example, over half of physicians have a net worth above $1 million. In contrast, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report, less than 7% of the general population has a seven-figure net worth.
So just how do physicians stack up financially?
Habits of physician super savers
Physicians who consider themselves savers likely have money habits that correlate. They buy things on sale, are DIYers for home projects and maintenance, and wait to buy luxury or large expenses when the timing is right, an item is on sale, or they’ve saved for it.
For example, when it comes to life’s luxuries like buying a new car or dining out, overall, physicians seem to be more frugal, as 43% of those who buy cars said they only buy a new car every 10 years; 30% said they buy a new vehicle every 6-7 years, and 22% said every 4-5 years.
When asked about weekly dine-out or delivery habits, 82% of those polled who said they dine out, or order takeout, do so a nominal 1-2 times per week. That’s on par with the Centers for Disease Control, which reports that 3 in 5 Americans eat out once weekly. Another 14% of polled physicians said they dine out 3-5 nights per week. Only 4% revealed they eat out or grab to-go food more than 5 nights a week.
When hiring for essential home maintenance, like house cleaning and pool or lawn service, almost a third of physicians we polled who require such maintenance employ a service for these tasks, and 23% hire out often while 21% hire out only sometimes. However, 14% say they rarely hire out for home maintenance, and 11% never do.
Since physicians are typically tight on time, they tend to favor outsourcing things like housecleaning, lawn service, landscaping, maintenance, and even cooking. So, the fact that a quarter of physicians polled rarely or never hire out for household help is somewhat surprising.
Most physicians also prioritize saving. When asked how important it is to save money consistently, 93% think it’s either extremely or very important, while only 6% think it’s somewhat important.
Barriers to wealth
When asked what barriers prevent them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, physician respondents who said they live within their means and encountered barriers reported that family necessities (35%), student loan debt (19%), and mortgage sizes (18%) were the top reasons. The average doctor earns five times as much as the average American, according to the Global Wealth Report.
“What prevents me from saving is holding too much debt, responsibilities at home, bills, being unprepared for what is coming, and making excuses to spend even when it’s not necessary,” says Sean Ormond, MD, a dual board-certified physician in Anesthesiology and Pain Management in Phoenix.
When physician respondents who said they didn’t live within their means were asked about the barriers preventing them from saving at least 20% of their monthly income, they cited the cost of family necessities (49%), the size of their mortgage (47%), credit card debt (30%), student loan debt (21%), other loans (15%), and car lease/loan (13%).
“My most significant financial splurge is vacation, since I always choose the best, and the best comes at an extra cost,” says Dr. Ormond.
What’s your financial grade?
Finally, physicians were asked who they considered better at saving money, themselves or their spouse/domestic partner. Forty-four percent think they are the better saver, whereas 41% said that both they and their partner were equally good at saving. Thirteen percent credited their partner with better saving habits, and 2% said neither themselves nor their partner were good at saving money.
More than half (63%) of physicians polled pay off their credit card balance monthly, but 18% carry a $1,000-$5,000 balance, 10% have $5,000-$10,000 in credit card debt, and 6% hold more than $10,000 of credit card debt.
“I would grade myself with a B, because however much I love having the best, I still have a budget, and I always ensure that I follow it to the dot,” says Dr. Ormond.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New COVID variant gaining traction in U.S.
, according to the CDC’s latest data.
Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.
“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.
There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19.
Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.
“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News.
Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC.
But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.
“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to the CDC’s latest data.
Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.
“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.
There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19.
Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.
“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News.
Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC.
But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.
“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to the CDC’s latest data.
Just 1 month ago, the variant accounted for less than 1% of cases.
“When you get variants like that, you look at what their rate of increase is as a relative proportion of the variants, and this has a pretty troublesome doubling time,” Anthony Fauci, MD, said in an interview with CBS News. Dr. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden.
There are also concerning features of the BQ.1 variant, which include mutations that could potentially escape vaccines and treatments for COVID-19.
Currently, the most widespread variant in the U.S. is the Omicron subvariant known as BA.5, which accounts for 68% of all infections. One of the go-to treatments for BA.5 infections is monoclonal antibodies, which may not be as effective when fighting the up-and-coming strains of BQ.1 and its descendant BQ.1.1, according to experts.
“That’s the reason why people are concerned about BQ.1.1, for the double reason of its doubling time and the fact that it seems to elude important monoclonal antibodies,” Dr. Fauci told CBS News.
Currently, BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 appear most widespread in the New York and New Jersey region, accounting for nearly 20% of infections there, according to the CDC.
But because the new variant is a descendant of Omicron, Dr. Fauci said the currently available booster shots are still the best first line of protection against this up-and-coming threat.
“The bad news is that there’s a new variant that’s emerging and that has qualities or characteristics that could evade some of the interventions we have. But, the somewhat encouraging news is that it’s a BA.5 sub-lineage, so there is almost certainly going to be some cross-protection that you can boost up,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Finerenone benefits T2D across spectrum of renal function
Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.
The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.
“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.
The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.
The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.
A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
A new reason to screen for albuminuria
“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.
The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m2 in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.
In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.
The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD
In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”
Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.
“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.
The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”
The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.
Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.
The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.
“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.
The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.
The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.
A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
A new reason to screen for albuminuria
“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.
The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m2 in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.
In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.
The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD
In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”
Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.
“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.
The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”
The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.
Treatment with finerenone produced roughly similar reductions in heart failure–related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) across the spectrum of kidney function, compared with placebo, including those who had albuminuria but a preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), in a post hoc analysis of pooled data from more than 13,000 people.
The findings, from the two pivotal trials for the agent, “reinforce the importance of routine eGFR and UACR [urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio] screening” in people with type 2 diabetes to identify new candidates for treatment with finerenone (Kerendia), Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, and coauthors said in a report published online in JACC: Heart Failure.
Among the 13,026 patients in the two combined trials, 40% had a preserved eGFR of greater than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 despite also having albuminuria with a UACR of at least 30 mg/g, showing how often this combination occurs. But many clinicians “do not follow the guidelines” and fail to measure the UACR in these patients in routine practice, noted Dr. Filippatos at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in August.
“We now have something to do for these patients,” treat them with finerenone, said Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of heart failure at the Attikon University Hospital, Athens.
The availability of finerenone following its U.S. approval in 2021 means clinicians “must get used to measuring UACR” in people with type 2 diabetes even when their eGFR is normal, especially people with type 2 diabetes plus high cardiovascular disease risk, he said.
The Food and Drug Administration approved finerenone, a nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, for treating people with type 2 diabetes and CKD in July 2021, but its uptake has been slow, experts say. In a talk in September 2022 during the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, Jennifer B. Green, MD, estimated that U.S. uptake of finerenone for appropriate people with type 2 diabetes had not advanced beyond 10%.
A recent review also noted that uptake of screening for elevated UACR in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes was in the range of 10%-40% during 2017-2019, a “shockingly low rate,” said Dr. Green, a professor and diabetes specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
A new reason to screen for albuminuria
“It’s an extremely important message,” Johann Bauersachs, MD, commented in an interview. Results from “many studies have shown that albuminuria is an excellent additional marker for cardiovascular disease risk. But measurement of albuminuria is not widely done, despite guidelines that recommend annual albuminuria testing in people with type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Bauersachs, professor and head of the department of cardiology at Hannover (Germany) Medical School.
“Even before there was finerenone, there were reasons to measure UACR, but I hope adding finerenone will help, and more clinicians will incorporate UACR into their routine practice,” said Dr. Bauersachs, who was not involved with the finerenone studies.
The analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and coauthors used data from two related trials of finerenone, FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD, combined by prespecified design into a single dataset, FIDELITY, with a total of 13,026 participants eligible for analysis and followed for a median of 3 years. All had type 2 diabetes and CKD based on having a UACR of at least 30 mg/g. Their eGFR levels could run as high as 74 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in FIDELIO-DKD, and as high as 90 mL/min/1.73m2 in FIGARO-DKD. The two trials excluded people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and those with a serum potassium greater than 4.8 mmol/L.
In the FIDELITY dataset treatment with finerenone led to a significant 17% reduction in the combined incidence of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure relative to those who received placebo. This relative risk reduction was not affected by either eGFR or UACR values at baseline, the new analysis showed.
The analysis also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward greater reductions in heart failure–related outcomes among study participants who began with an eGFR in the normal range of at least 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The researchers also found a nonsignificant trend to a greater reduction in heart failure–related events among those with a UACR of less than 300 mg/g.
Finerenone favors patients with less advanced CKD
In short “the magnitude of the treatment benefit tended to favor patients with less advanced CKD,” concluded the researchers, suggesting that “earlier intervention [with finerenone] in the CKD course is likely to provide the greatest long-term benefit on heart failure–related outcomes.” This led them to further infer “the importance of not only routine assessing eGFR, but also perhaps more importantly, routinely screening for UACR to facilitate early diagnosis and early intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes.”
Findings from FIDELIO-DKD and FIGARO-DKD led to recent guideline additions for finerenone by several medical groups. In August 2022, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists released an update to its guideline for managing people with diabetes that recommended treating people with type 2 diabetes with finerenone when they have a UACR of at least 30 mg/g if they are already treated with a maximum-tolerated dose of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, have a normal serum potassium level, and have an eGFR of at least 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The identical recommendation also appeared in a Consensus Report from the American Diabetes Association and KDIGO, an international organization promoting evidence-based management of patients with CKD.
“Finerenone provides a very important contribution because it improves prognosis even in very well managed patients” with type 2 diabetes, commented Lars Rydén, MD, professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, as designated discussant for the report by Dr. Filippatos at the ESC congress.
The findings from the FIDELITY analysis are “trustworthy, and clinically important,” Dr. Rydén said. When left untreated, diabetic kidney disease “reduces life expectancy by an average of 16 years.”
The finerenone trials were sponsored by Bayer, which markets finerenone (Kerendia). Dr. Filippatos has received lecture fees from Bayer as well as from Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Green has financial ties to Bayer as well as to Anji, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, Hawthorne Effect/Omada, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Valo. Dr. Bauersachs has been a consultant to Bayer as well as to Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardior, Cervia, CVRx, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vifor, and he has received research funding from Abiomed. Dr. Rydén has financial ties to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk.
FROM JACC: HEART FAILURE
‘Not in our lane’: Physicians rebel at idea they should discuss gun safety with patients
The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.
Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.
Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
Physicians’ lack of qualifications
The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.
“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.
Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:
- “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
- “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
- “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
- “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022
Do mental health issues trump gun talks?
Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.
- “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
- “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
- “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
- “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022
Added responsibility is too much
Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.
- “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
- “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
- “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016
Other ways to communicate
For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.
Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.
“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.
“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.
Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.
Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
Physicians’ lack of qualifications
The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.
“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.
Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:
- “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
- “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
- “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
- “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022
Do mental health issues trump gun talks?
Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.
- “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
- “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
- “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
- “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022
Added responsibility is too much
Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.
- “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
- “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
- “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016
Other ways to communicate
For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.
Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.
“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.
“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll shows that that the margin of public opinion in the United States is the widest that it has been during the past 10 years in favor of taking steps to control gun violence; 59% of U.S. adults said it’s more important to control gun violence than to protect gun rights, and 35% said the opposite.
Have physicians’ opinions about gun issues in our country shifted meaningfully during that period? That’s a complex question that can be informed with the basic snapshot provided by doctors› comments to New York University (and Medscape blogger) bioethicist Arthur L. Caplan’s four video blogs on whether physicians should discuss gun safety with their patients. Dr. Caplan’s video blogs appeared on the Medscape website in 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022.
Hundreds of physicians have posted comments to Dr. Caplan’s arguments that doctors should bring up gun safety when talking to their patients. The great majority of comments opposed his position in 2014, and that remained the case through 2022, regardless of incidents of gun-related violence. Supportive comments have been a small minority that has grown only slightly over his four video blogs.
Physicians’ lack of qualifications
The most prevalent counterarguments expressed against Dr. Caplan’s position are that physicians lack the proper knowledge to discuss gun safety with patients; and the responsibility falls on family members, certified firearms instructors, teachers, and others – but not doctors – to educate people about firearm safety.
“Then there’s a third group that says, ‘I don’t want to do this because I am too busy trying to figure out what is wrong with the patient,’ ” Dr. Caplan says.
Here are a few on-point comments that were posted to his video blogs:
- “Unless physicians become certified firearms instructors like myself, they are not qualified to talk to patients on the subject and should advise patients to find a program and take a course.” – Dr. Ken Long, March 31, 2014
- “Gun safety should be taught in school, just like health and sex education.” – Patricia L., Feb. 11, 2016
- “None of my medical or surgical training or experience qualifies me as a policy expert on gun laws or regulations.” – Dr. Kelly Hyde, Dec. 23, 2018
- “I have the Constitution hanging in my office with an NRA plaque next to it. Most MDs can’t mow their own yard.” – Dr. Brian Anseeuw, June 21, 2022
Do mental health issues trump gun talks?
Another counterargument to discussing gun safety with patients involves mental health issues that many physicians may not be trained to address. Mental health entered comments to Dr. Caplan’s video blogs in 2016 and has shaped much of the discussion since.
- “First of all, two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It is foolish to talk about counseling patients about gun safety, etc, and ignore the mental health issues.” – Dr. Jeffrey Jennings, Jan. 25, 2016
- “Suicide victims and those committing mass shootings are mentally ill. ... Blame society, drugs, mental illness, easy access to illegal firearms, and poor recognition of SOS (signs of suicide).” – Dr. Alan DeCarlo, Dec. 24, 2018
- “Yes, we have gun violence, but what is the underlying problem? Bullying? Mental issues? Not enough parental supervision? These and others are the issues I feel need to be discussed.” – T. Deese, June 24, 2022
- “The causes of increased gun violence are mental health, problems with bullying, social media, and normalization of deviant behavior.” – Julie Johng, 2022
Added responsibility is too much
Another theme that has grown over time is that talks of gun safety just heap issues onto physicians’ treatment plates that are already too full.
- “Oh, for God’s sake, is there anything else I can do while I›m at it? Primary care has gotten to be more headache than it’s worth. Thanks for another reason to think about retiring.” – Dr. Kathleen Collins, March 31, 2014
- “THE JOB OF POLICE, COURTS, AND LAW-EDUCATED PROSECUTORS SHOULD NOT BE HANDLED BY PHYSICIANS.” – Dr. Sudarshan Singla, Jan. 25, 2016
- “This is a debate that only those at the academic/ivory tower–level of medicine even have time to lament. The frontline medical providers barely have enough time to adequately address the pertinent.” – Tobin Purslow, Jan. 15, 2016
Other ways to communicate
For his part, Dr. Caplan believes there is a variety of ways physicians can effectively discuss gun safety with patients to help minimize the potential of injury or death.
Acknowledging that other aspects of treatment are often more pressing, he suggested that the gun safety education could be done through educational videos that are shown in waiting rooms, through pamphlets available at the front desk, or throuigh a newsletter sent to patients.
“Everything doesn’t have to happen in conversation. The doctor’s office should become more of an educational site.
“I am 100% more passionate about this than when I first started down this road.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
You and the skeptical patient: Who’s the doctor here?
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“I spoke to him on many occasions about the dangers of COVID, but he just didn’t believe me,” said Dr. Hood, an internist in Lexington, Ky. “He just didn’t give me enough time to help him. He waited to let me know he was ill with COVID and took days to pick up the medicine. Unfortunately, he then passed away.”
The rise of the skeptical patient
It can be extremely frustrating for doctors when patients question or disbelieve their physician’s medical advice and explanations. And many physicians resent the amount of time they spend trying to explain or make their case, especially during a busy day. But patients’ skepticism about the validity of some treatments seems to be increasing.
“Patients are now more likely to have their own medical explanation for their complaint than they used to, and that can be bad for their health,” Dr. Hood said.
Dr. Hood sees medical cynicism as part of Americans’ growing distrust of experts, leveraged by easy access to the internet. “When people Google, they tend to look for support of their opinions, rather than arrive at a fully educated decision.”
Only about half of patients believe their physicians “provide fair and accurate treatment information all or most of the time,” according to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center.
Patients’ distrust has become more obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic, said John Schumann, MD, an internist with Oak Street Health, a practice with more than 500 physicians and other providers in 20 states, treating almost exclusively Medicare patients.
“The skeptics became more entrenched during the pandemic,” said Dr. Schumann, who is based in Tulsa, Okla. “They may think the COVID vaccines were approved too quickly, or believe the pandemic itself is a hoax.”
“There’s a lot of antiscience rhetoric now,” Dr. Schumann added. “I’d say about half of my patients are comfortable with science-based decisions and the other half are not.”
What are patients mistrustful about?
Patients’ suspicions of certain therapies began long before the pandemic. In dermatology, for example, some patients refuse to take topical steroids, said Steven R. Feldman, MD, a dermatologist in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Their distrust is usually based on anecdotal stories they read about,” he noted. “Patients in other specialties are dead set against vaccinations.”
In addition to refusing treatments and inoculations, some patients ask for questionable regimens mentioned in the news. “Some patients have demanded hydroxychloroquine or Noromectin, drugs that are unproven in the treatment of COVID,” Dr. Schumann said. “We refuse to prescribe them.”
Dr. Hood said patients’ reluctance to follow medical advice can often be based on cost. “I have a patient who was more willing to save $20 than to save his life. But when the progression of his test results fit my predictions, he became more willing to take treatments. I had to wait for the opportune moment to convince him.”
Many naysayer patients keep their views to themselves, and physicians may be unaware that the patients are stonewalling. A 2006 study estimated that about 10%-16% of primary care patients actively resist medical authority.
Dr. Schumann cited patients who don’t want to hear an upsetting diagnosis. “Some patients might refuse to take a biopsy to see if they have cancer because they don’t want to know,” he said. “In many cases, they simply won’t get the biopsy and won’t tell the doctor that they didn’t.”
Sometimes skeptics’ arguments have merit
Some patients’ concerns can be valid, such as when they refuse to go on statins, said Zain Hakeem, DO, a physician in Austin, Tex.
“In some cases, I feel that statins are not necessary,” he said. “The science on statins for primary prevention is not strong, although they should be used for exceedingly high-risk patients.”
Certain patients, especially those with chronic conditions, do a great deal of research, using legitimate sources on the Web, and their research is well supported.
However, these patients can be overconfident in their conclusions. Several studies have shown that with just a little experience, people can replace beginners’ caution with a false sense of competence.
For example, “Patients may not weigh the risks correctly,” Dr. Hakeem said. “They can be more concerned about the risk of having their colon perforated during a colonoscopy, while the risk of cancer if they don’t have a colonoscopy is much higher.”
Some highly successful people may be more likely to trust their own medical instincts. When Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, he put off surgery for 9 months while he tried to cure his disease with a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbs, bowel cleansings, and other remedies he read about. He died in 2011. Some experts believe that delay hastened his death.
Of course, not all physicians’ diagnoses or treatments are correct. One study indicated doctors’ diagnostic error rate could be as high as 15%. And just as patients can be overconfident in their conclusions, so can doctors. Another study found that physicians’ stated confidence in their diagnosis was only slightly affected by the inaccuracy of that diagnosis or the difficulty of the case.
Best ways to deal with cynical patients
Patients’ skepticism can frustrate doctors, reduce the efficiency of care delivery, and interfere with recovery. What can doctors do to deal with these problems?
1. Build the patient’s trust in you. “Getting patients to adhere to your advice involves making sure they feel they have a caring doctor whom they trust,” Dr. Feldman said.
“I want to show patients that I am entirely focused on them,” he added. “For example, I may rush to the door of the exam room from my last appointment, but I open the door very slowly and deliberately, because I want the patient to see that I won’t hurry with them.”
2. Spend time with the patient. Familiarity builds trust. Dr. Schumann said doctors at Oak Street Health see their patients an average of six to eight times a year, an unusually high number. “The more patients see their physicians, the more likely they are to trust them.”
3. Keep up to date. “I make sure I’m up to date with the literature, and I try to present a truthful message,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, my research showed that inflammation played a strong role in developing complications from COVID, so I wrote a detailed treatment protocol aimed at the inflammation and the immune response, which has been very effective.”
4. Confront patients tactfully. Patients who do research on the Web don’t want to be scolded, Dr. Feldman said. In fact, he praises them, even if he doesn’t agree with their findings. “I might say: ‘What a relief to finally find patients who’ve taken the time to educate themselves before coming here.’ ”
Dr. Feldman is careful not to dispute patients’ conclusions. “Debating the issues is not an effective approach to get patients to trust you. The last thing you want to tell a patient is: ‘Listen to me! I’m an expert.’ People just dig in.”
However, it does help to give patients feedback. “I’m a big fan of patients arguing with me,” Dr. Hakeem said. “It means you can straighten out misunderstandings and improve decision-making.”
5. Explain your reasoning. “You need to communicate clearly and show them your thinking,” Dr. Hood said. “For instance, I’ll explain why a patient has a strong risk for heart attack.”
6. Acknowledge uncertainties. “The doctor may present the science as far more certain than it is,” Dr. Hakeem said. “If you don’t acknowledge the uncertainties, you could break the patient’s trust in you.”
7. Don’t use a lot of numbers. “Data is not a good tool to convince patients,” Dr. Feldman said. “The human brain isn’t designed to work that way.”
If you want to use numbers to show clinical risk, Dr. Hakeem advisd using natural frequencies, such as 10 out of 10,000, which is less confusing to the patient than the equivalent percentage of 0.1%.
It can be helpful to refer to familiar concepts. One way to understand a risk is to compare it with risks in daily life, such as the dangers of driving or falling in the shower, Dr. Hakeem added.
Dr. Feldman often refers to another person’s experience when presenting his medical advice. “I might say to the patient: ‘You remind me of another patient I had. They were sitting in the same chair you’re sitting in. They did really well on this drug, and I think it’s probably the best choice for you, too.’ ”
8. Adopt shared decision-making. This approach involves empowering the patient to become an equal partner in medical decisions. The patient is given information through portals and is encouraged to do research. Critics, however, say that most patients don’t want this degree of empowerment and would rather depend on the doctor’s advice.
Conclusion
It’s often impossible to get through to a skeptical patient, which can be disheartening for doctors. “Physicians want to do what is best for the patient, so when the patient doesn’t listen, they may take it personally,” Dr. Hood said. “But you always have to remember, the patient is the one with disease, and it’s up to the patient to open the door.”
Still, some skeptical patients ultimately change their minds. Dr. Schumann said patients who initially declined the COVID vaccine eventually decided to get it. “It often took them more than a year. but it’s never too late.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AFib detection by smartwatch challenging in some patients
The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.
“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].
“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.
The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
Abnormalities affected detection
The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”
Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”
The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.
Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.
Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).
Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.
Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.
When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.
Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).
Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.
The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
‘A powerful tool’
Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).
Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.
“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”
Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.
“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
Technology improving
Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”
The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”
Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”
Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”
The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.
“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].
“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.
The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
Abnormalities affected detection
The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”
Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”
The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.
Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.
Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).
Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.
Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.
When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.
Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).
Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.
The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
‘A powerful tool’
Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).
Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.
“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”
Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.
“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
Technology improving
Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”
The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”
Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”
Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”
The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The ability of an Apple Watch to detect atrial fibrillation (AFib) is significantly affected by underlying ECG abnormalities such as sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular (AV) block, or intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD), a single-center study suggests.
“We were surprised to find that in one in every five patients, the smartwatch ECG failed to produce an automatic diagnosis,” study author Marc Strik, MD, PhD, a clinician at Bordeaux University Hospital in Pessac, France, told this news organization. “This [failure] was mostly due to insufficient quality of the tracing [60%], but in a third of cases, [34%], it was due to bradycardia, and in some cases, tachycardia [6%].
“We were also surprised to find that the existence of ventricular conduction disease was associated with a higher likelihood of missing AFib,” he said.
The study was published in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
Abnormalities affected detection
The investigators tested the accuracy of the Apple Watch (Apple, Cupertino, California) in detecting AFib in patients with various ECG anomalies. All participants underwent 12-lead ECG, followed by a 30-second ECG tracing with an Apple Watch Series 5. The smartwatch’s automated AFib detection algorithm gave a result of “no signs of AFib,” “AFib,” or “not checked for AFib (unclassified).”
Unclassified recordings resulted from “low heart rate” (below 50 beats/min), “high heart rate” (above 150 beats/min), “poor recording,” or “inconclusive recording.”
The smartwatch recordings were reviewed by a blinded electrophysiologist who interpreted each tracing and assigned a diagnosis of “AFib,” “absence of AFib,” or “diagnosis unclear.” To assess interobserver agreement, a second blinded electrophysiologist interpreted 100 randomly selected tracings.
Among the 734 patients (mean age, 66; 58% men) enrolled, 539 (73%) were in normal sinus rhythm (SR), 154 (21%) in AFib, 33 in atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, 3 in ventricular tachycardia, and 5 in junctional tachycardia.
Furthermore, 65 (8.9%) had sinus node dysfunction, 21 (2.9%) had second- or third-degree AV block, 39 (5.3%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, 54 (7.4%) had premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), and 132 (18%) had IVCD (right or left bundle branch block or nonspecific IVCD).
Of the 539 patients in normal SR, 437 recordings were correctly diagnosed by the smartwatch, 7 were diagnosed incorrectly as AFib, and 95 were not classified.
Of the 187 patients in AFib, 129 were correctly diagnosed, 17 were incorrectly diagnosed as SR, and 41 were not classified.
When unclassified ECGs were considered false results, the smartwatch had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81% for AFib detection. When unclassified ECGs were excluded from the analysis, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 98%.
Compared with patients without the abnormality, the relative risk of having false positive tracings was higher for patients with premature atrial contractions (PACs) or PVCs (risk ratio, 2.9), sinus node dysfunction (RR, 3.71), and AV block (RR, 7.8).
Fifty-eight patients with AFib were classified as SR or inconclusive by the smartwatch. Among them, 21 (36%) had an IVCD, 7 (12%) had a ventricular paced rhythm, and 5 (9%) had PACs or PVCs.
The risk of having false negative tracings (missed AF) was higher for patients with IVCD (RR, 2.6) and pacing (RR, 2.47), compared with those without the abnormality.
‘A powerful tool’
Overall, cardiac electrophysiologists showed high agreement in differentiating between AFib and non-AFib, with high interobserver reproducibility. A manual diagnosis was not possible for 10% of tracings because of either poor ECG quality (3%) or unclear P-waves (7%).
Fifty-nine of the 580 patients in SR were misclassified as AFib by the experts, and 5 of the 154 patients in AFib were misclassified as SR.
“Our results show that the presence of sinus node dysfunction, second- or third-degree AV block, ventricular paced rhythm, PVCs, and IVCD were more frequently represented in smartwatch misdiagnoses,” wrote the authors. “Patients with PVCs were three times as likely to have false positive AFib diagnoses.”
Study limitations included the single-center nature of the study and the fact that patients were recruited in a cardiology office. The latter factor may have influenced the incidence of ECG abnormalities, which was much higher than for the average smartwatch user.
“Even with its limitations, the smartwatch remains a powerful tool that is able to detect AFib and multiple other abnormalities,” said Dr. Strik. “Missed diagnosis of AFib may be less important in real life because of repeated measurements, and algorithms will continue to improve.”
Technology improving
Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician in chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said, “This is exactly the kind of investigation required to improve upon existing detection algorithms that will someday facilitate routine use in patient care. An ability to detect AFib in a large proportion of those with the heart rhythm abnormality is encouraging.”
The findings should not detract from well-conducted studies in otherwise healthy individuals of varied age in whom AFib was accurately detected, he added. “Similarly, an automatic diagnosis algorithm for AF, pending optimization and validation in a large and diverse cohort, should be viewed as a communication tool between patients and health care providers.”
Patients at risk for developing AFib could benefit from continuous monitoring using a smartwatch, said Dr. Becker. “Pre-existing heart rhythm abnormalities must be taken into consideration. Optimal utilization of emerging technology to include wearables requires an understanding of performance and limitations. It is best undertaken in coordination with a health care provider.”
Andrés F. Miranda-Arboleda, MD, and Adrian Baranchuk, MD, of Kingston Health Sciences Center, Canada, conclude in an accompanying editorial, “In a certain manner, the smartwatch algorithms for the detection of AFib in patients with cardiovascular conditions are not yet smart enough ... but they may soon be.”
The study was supported by the French government. Dr. Strik, Dr. Miranda-Arboleda, Dr. Baranchuk, and Dr. Becker reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
New deep dive into Paxlovid interactions with CVD meds
Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.
COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.
“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.
“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”
The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.
It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.
Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.
“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.
When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.
For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.
Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.
Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.
While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.
“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”
Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.
The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.
Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.
“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.
“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.
COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.
“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.
“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”
The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.
It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.
Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.
“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.
When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.
For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.
Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.
Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.
While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.
“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”
Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.
The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.
Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.
“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.
“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) has been a game changer for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 symptoms but has significant interactions with commonly used cardiovascular medications, a new paper cautions.
COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease are at high risk of severe disease and account for the lion’s share of those receiving Paxlovid. Data from the initial EPIC-HR trial and recent real-world data also suggest they’re among the most likely to benefit from the oral antiviral, regardless of their COVID-19 vaccination status.
“But at the same time, it unfortunately interacts with many very commonly prescribed cardiovascular medications and with many of them in a very clinically meaningful way, which may lead to serious adverse consequences,” senior author Sarju Ganatra, MD, said in an interview. “So, while it’s being prescribed with a good intention to help these people, we may actually end up doing more harm than good.
“We don’t want to deter people from getting their necessary COVID-19 treatment, which is excellent for the most part these days as an outpatient,” he added. “So, we felt the need to make a comprehensive list of cardiac medications and level of interactions with Paxlovid and also to help the clinicians and prescribers at the point of care to make the clinical decision of what modifications they may need to do.”
The paper, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, details drug-drug interactions with some 80 CV medications including statins, antihypertensive agents, heart failure therapies, and antiplatelet/anticoagulants.
It also includes a color-coded figure denoting whether a drug is safe to coadminister with Paxlovid, may potentially interact and require a dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation, or is contraindicated.
Among the commonly used blood thinners, for example, the paper notes that Paxlovid significantly increases drug levels of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran and, thus, increases the risk of bleeding.
“It can still be administered, if it’s necessary, but the dose of the DOAC either needs to be reduced or held depending on what they are getting it for, whether they’re getting it for pulmonary embolism or atrial fibrillation, and we adjust for all those things in the table in the paper,” said Dr. Ganatra, from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass.
When the DOAC can’t be interrupted or dose adjusted, however, Paxlovid should not be given, the experts said. The antiviral is safe to use with enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, but can increase or decrease levels of warfarin and should be used with close international normalized ratio monitoring.
For patients on antiplatelet agents, clinicians are advised to avoid prescribing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir to those on ticagrelor or clopidogrel unless the agents can be replaced by prasugrel.
Ritonavir – an inhibitor of cytochrome P 450 enzymes, particularly CYP3A4 – poses an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor, a CYP3A4 substrate, and decreases the active metabolite of clopidogrel, cutting its platelet inhibition by 20%. Although there’s a twofold decrease in the maximum concentration of prasugrel in patients on ritonavir, this does not affect its antiplatelet activity, the paper explains.
Among the lipid-lowering agents, experts suggested temporarily withholding atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin because of an increased risk for myopathy and liver toxicity but say that other statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, and the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab are safe to coadminister with Paxlovid.
While statins typically leave the body within hours, most of the antiarrhythmic drugs, except for sotalol, are not safe to give with Paxlovid, Dr. Ganatra said. It’s technically not feasible to hold these drugs because most have long half-lives, reaching about 100 days, for example, for amiodarone.
“It’s going to hang around in your system for a long time, so you don’t want to be falsely reassured that you’re holding the drug and it’s going to be fine to go back slowly,” he said. “You need to look for alternative therapies in those scenarios for COVID-19 treatment, which could be other antivirals, or a monoclonal antibody individualized to the patient’s risk.”
Although there’s limited clinical information regarding interaction-related adverse events with Paxlovid, the team used pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data to provide the guidance. Serious adverse events are also well documented for ritonavir, which has been prescribed for years to treat HIV, Dr. Ganatra noted.
The Infectious Disease Society of America also published guidance on the management of potential drug interactions with Paxlovid in May and, earlier in October, the Food and Drug Administration updated its Paxlovid patient eligibility screening checklist.
Still, most prescribers are actually primary care physicians and even pharmacists, who may not be completely attuned, said Dr. Ganatra, who noted that some centers have started programs to help connect primary care physicians with their cardiology colleagues to check on CV drugs in their COVID-19 patients.
“We need to be thinking more broadly and at a system level where the hospital or health care system leverages the electronic health record systems,” he said. “Most of them are sophisticated enough to incorporate simple drug-drug interaction information, so if you try to prescribe someone Paxlovid and it’s a heart transplant patient who is on immunosuppressive therapy or a patient on a blood thinner, then it should give you a warning ... or at least give them a link to our paper or other valuable resources.
“If someone is on a blood thinner and the blood thinner level goes up by ninefold, we can only imagine what we would be dealing with,” Dr. Ganatra said. “So, these interactions should be taken very seriously and I think it’s worth the time and investment.”
The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Starting a blog
. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.
Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.
Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.
By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)
The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.
You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.
That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.
Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.
Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.
Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.
If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
*This article was updated 10/17/2022.
. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.
Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.
Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.
By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)
The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.
You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.
That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.
Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.
Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.
Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.
If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
*This article was updated 10/17/2022.
. Health information is one of the most popular topics people search for online. Starting a physician blog can provide your practice with promotional and marketing benefits that you may have a difficult time finding elsewhere. A blog can be an effective way to drive traffic to your website, establish yourself as an authority or expert in a particular area, and stay on the radar with your patients. However, there are a few things you should think about before you start.
Start by determining what you want to accomplish. Do you want to reach quantitative milestones, like a certain number of followers, or are you looking to increase your website traffic from potential patients? One goal will probably be to augment the health knowledge of your patients. Decide early on what your benchmarks will be and how you will track them.
Next, determine who your potential readers are. Initially, most will probably be local (your existing patient base and their family and friends), but your audience may expand geographically as your blog gains in popularity.
By now, you probably realize that blogging will require a significant commitment, over and above the time needed to write the content. Decide whether you have the time and energy to take this on yourself, or whether help will be needed. Ideally, you should have one person in charge of all your social media efforts, so that everything is consistent and has the same voice. That person can be in-house, or you can outsource to any of the many companies that administer blogs and other media functions. (As always, I have no financial interest in any company or service mentioned in this column.)
The advantage of hiring an outside administrator is that a professionally designed blog will be far more attractive and polished than anything you could build yourself. Furthermore, an experienced designer will employ “search engine optimization” (SEO), meaning that content will be created using key words and phrases that will make it readily visible to search engine users.
You can leave design and SEO to the pros, but don’t delegate the content itself; as captain of the ship you are responsible for all the facts and opinions on your blog. You may not be up to writing everything yourself, but anything you don’t write personally needs to be scrutinized by you personally to make sure that it is factually accurate and reflects your personal view. And remember that, once it’s online, it’s online forever; consider the ramifications of anything you post on any site – yours or others – before hitting the “send” button. “The most damaging item about you,” one consultant told me, “could well be something you post yourself.” Just ask any of several prominent politicians who have famously sabotaged their own careers online.
That said, don’t be shy about creating content. Patients appreciate factual information, but they value your opinions too. Give people content that will be of interest or benefit to them. This can include health-related tips, reminders, suggestions, whatever. If they are interested in it, they will keep reading and may even share it with others. You should also write about subjects – medical and otherwise – that interest you personally. If you have expertise in a particular field, be sure to write about that.
Your practice is a local business, so localize your blog to attract people from your area. Be sure to include local city keywords in your writing. You may also want to post about local events in which your practice is involved.
Try to avoid political diatribes. While most physicians have strong political opinions, and some are not shy about expressing them, there are many venues that are more appropriate for those discussions than medical blogs. Also avoid outright sales pitches. It’s fine to describe procedures that you offer, but aggressive solicitation will only turn readers off.
Keep any medical advice in general terms; don’t use any specific examples that might make a patient identifiable and generate a HIPAA violation.
If you are having trouble growing your readership, use your practice’s Facebook page to push blog updates into patients’ feeds. Additionally, track Twitter hashtags that are relevant to your practice, and use them to find existing online communities with an interest in your blog’s topics.
Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].
*This article was updated 10/17/2022.
