Cardiology News

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

You may have noticed that collecting patient payments has been tough this year. Owing to the pandemic, job loss, and the possible loss of health insurance, patients have had more difficulty managing copays, coinsurance, and deductibles, not to mention other out-of-pocket health care charges.

“Many of our patients have lost their jobs or have had their hours cut back, and as a result, they are struggling to make ends meet,” said Ahmad Chaudhry, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Lexington, Ky. “However, we cannot continue to provide care if our patients do not pay their bills.”

This news organization asked physicians what they do when their patients don’t pay. About 43% said that they continue to treat them and develop a payment plan; 13% send their bill to collections; 12% continue their care and write off their balance, and 25% choose other actions. Only 8% of physicians drop patients if they don’t pay.

Because you need to pay your own bills, what can you do about nonpaying patients?
 

Start with price transparency

In the past, patients never knew what their lab work or a chest EKG would cost because it wasn’t listed anywhere, and it was usually more than expected. Because of new legislation concerning health care price transparency, hospitals, health plans, and insurers must pony up with the actual fees, making them transparent to patients. Physician practices should follow suit and keep prices transparent too. Patients are more likely to pay their bills when prepared for the expense.

Patients with insurance often don’t know what they’ll be paying for their visit or their tests because they don’t know how much insurance will cover and what will be left for them to pay. Also, they may not know if they’ve met their deductible yet so they’re unsure whether insurance will even kick in. And patients without insurance still need to know what their costs will be upfront.

According to 10 insights from the Primary Care Consumer Choice Survey, 74% of health care consumers were willing to pay a $50 out-of-pocket charge to know the cost of their primary care visit.
 

Provide payment plans

Many patients have always needed payment plans. It’s one thing to post a sign at check-in telling patients that all monies are due at the time of service, but it’s another reality for a patient who can’t fork over the $250 charge they just unexpectedly spent in your office.

Discover Financial Services recently ran a survey, with results presented in the press release Americans are Delaying Non-Emergency Medical Care in Higher Numbers than Last Year, and found that many Americans with medical debt are delaying nonemergency medical care. For example, they put off seeing a specialist (52%), seeing a doctor for sickness (41%), and undergoing treatment plans recommended by their doctor (31%). 

Turning an account over to collections should be a last resort. In addition, agencies typically charge 30%-40% of the total collected off the top.

Though collecting that amount is better than nothing, using a collection agency may have unexpected consequences. For instance, you’re trusting the agency you hire to collect to represent you and act on your practice’s behalf. If they’re rude or their tactics are harsh in the eyes of the patient or their relatives, it’s your reputation that is on the line.

Rather than use a collection agency, you could collect the payments yourself. When a patient fails to pay within about 3 months, begin mailing statements from the office, followed by firm but generous phone calls trying to collect. Industry estimates put the average cost of sending an invoice, including staff labor, printing, and postage, at about $35 per mailer. Some practices combat the added costs by offering a 20% prompt-pay discount. Offering payment plans is another option that helps garner eventual payment. Plus, practices should direct patients to third-party lenders such as CareCredit for larger bills.

On occasion, some small practices may allow a swap, such as allowing a patient to provide a service such as plumbing, electrical, or painting in exchange for working off the bill. Though it’s not ideal when it comes to finances, you may find it can work in a pinch for a cash-strapped patient. Make sure to keep records of what bills the patient’s work goes toward.

It often helps to incentivize your billing staff to follow up regularly, with various suggestions and tactics, to get patients to pay their bills. The incentive amount you offer will probably be less than if you had to use a collection agency.
 

Have a payment policy

Because your practice’s primary job is caring for patients’ physical and emotional needs, payment collection without coming off as insensitive can be tricky. “We understand these are difficult times for everyone, and we are doing our best to work with our patients,” said Dr. Chaudhry. Having a written payment policy can help build the bridge. A policy lets patients know what they can expect and can help prevent surprises over what occurs in the event of nonpayment. Your written policy should include:

• When payment is due.
• How the practice handles copays and deductibles.
• What forms of payment are accepted.
• Your policy regarding nonpayment.

Why patients don’t pay

A 2021 Healthcare Consumer Experience Study from Cedar found that medical bills are a source of anxiety and frustration for most patients, affecting their financial experience. More than half of the respondents said that paying a medical bill is stressful. Complicating matters, many health care practices rely on outdated payment systems, which may not provide patients with a clear view of what they owe and how to pay it.

The study found that 53% of respondents find understanding their plan’s coverage and benefits stressful, and 37% of patients won’t pay their bill if they can’t understand it.

People may think the patient is trying to get out of paying, which, of course, is sometimes true, but most of the time they want to pay, concluded the study. Most patients need a better explanation, communication, and accurate accounting of their out-of-pocket costs.
 

What can doctors do?

If you’re a physician who regularly sees patients who have problems paying their bills, you can take a few steps to minimize the financial impact on your practice:

• Bill the patient’s insurance directly to ensure you receive at least partial payment.
• Keep adequate records of services in case you need to pursue legal action.
• “Be understanding and flexible when it comes to payment arrangements, as this can often be the difference between getting paid and not getting paid at all,” said Dr. Chaudhry.

Distance yourself

When discussing payment policies, physicians should try to distance themselves from the actual collection process as much as possible. Well-meaning physicians often tell patients things like they can “figure something out “ financially or “work them in” during a scheduling conflict, but that often undermines the authority and credibility of the practice’s office staff. Plus, it teaches patients they can get their way if they work on the doctor’s soft spot – something you don’t want to encourage.

By following some of these measures, you can help ensure that your practice continues to thrive despite the challenges posed by nonpaying patients.

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

Here’s another vote for less screen time. Using a smartphone application to track blood pressure won’t lead to any greater reduction in BP than self-monitoring the old-fashioned way, a new study finds.

“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”

While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.

In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.

Methods

Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.

After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.

Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).

“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.

New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”

Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps

Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.

“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”

Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”

When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”

Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”

To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.

Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.

These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”

Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”

“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.

The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Here’s another vote for less screen time. Using a smartphone application to track blood pressure won’t lead to any greater reduction in BP than self-monitoring the old-fashioned way, a new study finds.

“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”

While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.

In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.

Methods

Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.

After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.

Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).

“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.

New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”

Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps

Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.

“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”

Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”

When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”

Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”

To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.

Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.

These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”

Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”

“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.

The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Here’s another vote for less screen time. Using a smartphone application to track blood pressure won’t lead to any greater reduction in BP than self-monitoring the old-fashioned way, a new study finds.

“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”

While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.

In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.

Methods

Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.

After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.

Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).

“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.

New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”

Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps

Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.

“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”

Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”

When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”

Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”

To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.

Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.

These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”

Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”

“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.

The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

In a case-control study, atherosclerotic risk factors were uncommon in childhood and did not appear to be associated with the pathogenesis of arterial ischemic stroke in children or in early young adulthood.

But by the fourth and fifth decades of life, these risk factors were strongly associated with a significant risk for stroke, heightening that risk almost tenfold.

“While strokes in childhood and very early adulthood are not likely caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, it does look like these risk factors increase throughout early and young adulthood and become significant risk factors for stroke in the 30s and 40s,” lead author Sharon N. Poisson, MD, MAS, associate professor of neurology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.

In this study, the researchers focused on arterial ischemic stroke, not hemorrhagic stroke. “We know that high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking, obesity, all of these are risk factors for ischemic stroke, but what we didn’t know is at what age do those atherosclerotic risk factors actually start to cause stroke,” Dr. Poisson said.

To find out more, she and her team did a case control study of data in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system, which had been accumulating relevant data over a period of 14 years, from Jan. 1, 2000, through Dec. 31, 2014.

The analysis included 141 children and 455 young adults with arterial ischemic stroke and 1,382 age-matched controls.

The children were divided into two age categories: ages 29 days to 9 years and ages 10-19 years.

In the younger group, there were 69 cases of arterial ischemic stroke. In the older age group, there were 72 cases.

Young adults were divided into three age categories: 20-29 years (n = 71 cases), 30-39 years (144 cases), and 40-49 years (240 cases).

Among pediatric controls, 168 children aged 29 days to 9 years (46.5%) and 196 children aged 10-19 years (53.8%) developed arterial ischemic stroke.

There were 121 cases of ischemic stroke among young adult controls aged 20-29 years, 298 cases among controls aged 30-39 years, and 599 cases in those aged 40-49 years.

Both childhood cases and controls had a low prevalence of documented diagnoses of atherosclerotic risk factors (ARFs). The odds ratio of having any ARFs on arterial ischemic stroke was 1.87 for ages 0-9 years, and 1.00 for ages 10-19.

However, cases rose with age.

The OR was 2.3 for age range 20-29 years, 3.57 for age range 30-39 years, and 4.91 for age range 40-49 years.

The analysis also showed that the OR associated with multiple ARFs was 5.29 for age range 0-9 years, 2.75 for age range 10-19 years, 7.33 for age range 20-29 years, 9.86 for age range 30-39 years, and 9.35 for age range 40-49 years.

Multiple risk factors were rare in children but became more prevalent with each decade of young adult life.

The presumed cause of arterial ischemic stroke was atherosclerosis. Evidence of atherosclerosis was present in 1.4% of those aged 10-19 years, 8.5% of those aged 20-29 years, 21.5% of those aged 30-39 years, and 42.5% of those aged 40-49 years.

“This study tells us that, while stroke in adolescence and very early adulthood may not be caused by atherosclerotic risk factors, starting to accumulate those risk factors early in life clearly increases the risk of stroke in the 30s and 40s. I hope we can get this message across, because the sooner we can treat the risk factors, the better the outcome,” Dr. Poisson said.
 

Prevention starts in childhood

Prevention of cardiovascular disease begins in childhood, which is a paradigm shift from the way cardiovascular disease was thought of a couple of decades ago, noted pediatric cardiologist Guilherme Baptista de Faia, MD, from the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago.

“Our guidelines for risk factor reduction in children aim to address how or when do we screen for these risk factors, how or when do we intervene, and do these interventions impact cardiovascular outcomes later in life? This article is part of the mounting research that aims to understand the relationship between childhood cardiovascular risk factors and early cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Baptista de Faia said.

“There has been an interesting progression in our understanding of the impact of CV risk factors early in life. Large cohorts such as Bogalusa Heart Study, Risk in Young Finns Study, Muscatine Study, the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health, CARDIA, and the International Childhood Cardiovascular Cohorts (i3C) have been instrumental in evaluating this question,” he said.

The knowledge that atherosclerotic risk factors in children can lead to acceleration of atherosclerosis in later life opens the door to preventive medicine, said Dr. Baptista de Faia, who was not part of the study.

“This is where preventive medicine comes in. If we can identify the children at increased risk, can we intervene to improve outcomes later in life?” he said. Familial hypercholesterolemia is “a great example of this. We can screen children early in life, there is an effective treatment, and we know from populations studies that early treatment significantly decreases the risk for cardiovascular disease later in life.”

Dr. Poisson reported that she received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of this study, which was supported by the NIH.

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

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

More and more physicians are being wooed by private equity firms that want to buy their practices. The total value of private equity deals in health care in 2019 is estimated at about $120 billion, and it’s expected to grow over the coming years.

While the potential profit may seem alluring, physicians have mixed feelings as to whether this will be a boon or a disappointment.

Angelo Falcone, MD, a former emergency physician in Rockville, Md., found that a private equity investment transformed his career path.

For 19 years, Dr. Falcone was CEO of an emergency medicine group with 35 partners that staffed 10 emergency departments, mostly in Maryland. “We were a pretty small operation looking to get bigger, but to do that would require a substantial investment,” he said.

In 2015, after checking out all their options, the partners decided to sell to US Acute Care Solutions (USACS), a new private equity company founded by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, an investment firm in New York. Private equity can be used to expand practices and pay for new equipment. Dr. Falcone, serving as a USACS board member and its operational president, helped spur the company’s astounding growth. Today, USACS has about 5,000 physicians and other clinicians operating in 30 states.

In 2019, Dr. Falcone stepped down from his management post at USACS, took training in integrative medicine, and 2 years later opened a solo integrative medicine practice in Rockville. The new practice, which operates on a concierge model, is not connected with USACS, but Dr, Falcone still sits on the USACS board.

“I had a great experience at USACS. I believe in the power of private equity to support our patients and physicians,” Dr. Falcone said. “Now, at age 58, I have a second career in integrative medicine.”
 

Private equity is still controversial

David Fleeger, MD, has a different opinion of private equity. “I get offers from private equity firms fairly often, but I’m not seriously interested,” said Dr. Fleeger, a surgeon with Central Texas Colon and Rectal Surgeons in Austin.

“We don’t want to sell to anybody; we want to control our destiny,” he said. “We don’t have to borrow money or repay loans, and we don’t expect to get a windfall for the practice. The profits in medicine are too narrow for that to be realistic. There is no free lunch.”

Some of the doctors who sign up for private equity deals become dissatisfied and want to end the arrangement, according to John Pinto, an ophthalmic practice management consultant in San Diego.

“I get calls about once a month from doctors who want to get out of a private equity deal or revise the terms,” he said. “Some complaints are that the PE firm was too tight with the budget, wouldn’t hire needed staff, mismanaged operations, or otherwise mishandled their investment in the practice.”

It’s difficult for disgruntled physicians to exit a private equity deal, Mr. Pinto said. They commonly have to give up part of the payment they had received for their practice if they leave prematurely, and depending on the jurisdiction, stiff noncompete clauses in their contract won’t allow them to practice nearby.

Disillusioned physicians – and even many physicians who had good experiences with private equity – usually don’t want to air their complaints in public. One reason most of these doctors keep silent is that they have signed nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements that are part of most private equity deals.
 

The private equity proposition

Private equity firms typically pay a great deal more for practices than hospitals or even many large private practices, according to James D. Wall, an attorney in Winston-Salem, N.C., who has handled many private equity deals. Mr. Wall said private equity often organizes physicians around one specialty. One advantage these physicians have over hospital-employed physicians is that they aren’t under pressure to refer within a network.

Private equity companies set values for practices on the basis of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), said Howard Bogard, an attorney with Burr & Forman in Raleigh, N.C., who has handled many deals. Mr. Bogard said the amount physicians are paid is usually between 4 and 12 times’ EBITDA, so if your practice is earning $1 million a year in EBITDA, you would get $4 million to $12 million for it.

Of the total price tag, “Doctors get a hefty immediate payment when they sell,” Mr. Bogard said. “It might be 70% of the purchase price up front, and the 30% left over is equity in the buyer. The private equity firm then sells the practice 5-7 years later, and at that time, the physician’s equity is converted to cash and equity in the new buyer, often at the same 70/30 ratio. The idea is to keep the doctor interested in staying.”

Private equity firms expand practices to receive more favorable reimbursements and achieve economies of scale, according to Jane Zhu, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who has studied the phenomenon. Dr. Zhu said these firms may enhance profits by contracting with Medicare Advantage plans, joining accountable care organizations (ACOs), having their physicians work longer hours, and using advanced-practice clinicians instead of physicians.

“They want to make a large return in the order of 20% per year over several years, but they don’t want to strip the practice of value, because they’ll need to sell it to a new investor,” Dr. Zhu said.

When doctors sell to a private equity firm, they become employees and often have to take a pay cut, but their pay may rise again as new efficiencies are instituted. This occurred for partners in Minnesota Eye Consultants (MEC), an 11-member ophthalmology practice in Bloomington, Minn., that helped found Unifeye Vision Partners (UVP), a private equity company financed by Chicago-based Waud Capital Partners.

“When we sold the practice in 2017, we expected to see a 30% cut in the partners’ personal income,” said Richard L. Lindstrom, MD, who headed MEC until he retired last year. “Now, coming into the 6th year, all of the former partners who are still working are earning 10% above presale levels, except for one doctor who wanted to work fewer hours.” These doctors aren’t working longer hours but rather are benefiting from efficiencies, such as adding scribes and improving scheduling, he said.

Private equity brought discipline to the practice, said Dr. Lindstrom, who still sits on the Unifeye board. “In an independent practice, the partners may decide on a new piece of equipment because it would be fun to have, not because they’ve done a financial analysis,” he said. “We don’t wing it anymore.”

On the other hand, according to Dr. Zhu, some private equity firms may use draconian methods to improve efficiency. “Doctors may be expected to order or perform more services or work faster or longer to reach a certain threshold,” she said.
 

Can private equity uphold your interests?

To win over doctors, a private equity firm may agree to finance projects that the doctors want. For example, Dr. Lindstrom said after his group joined Unifeye, Waud Capital agreed to finance the doctors’ plan to open a new $6 million office. Before the deal, the partners would have had to take out a $6 million loan and personally guarantee it, he said.

A private equity firm may even agree to support the selling doctors’ practice philosophy, such as serving low-income patients – as long as it has a revenue stream. Luis Benavides, MD, is part of a seven-physician family medicine practice that treats many low-income patients in Laredo, Tex. “There is a lot of poverty here,” he said. This March, the group sold to a large private equity company, whose name Dr. Benavides preferred not to reveal.
One reason they made the new arrangement, Dr. Benavides said, was to qualify for ACO REACH, a new Medicare payment program that is mostly used in underserved areas and that allows more distribution of shared savings payments. “Our goal has always been better care,” he said. “We want to know how we can best serve our community.”

Dr. Benavides acknowledges that he has less independence in the new arrangement, but “I already lost my independence when I went from solo practice to a group,” he said. “The upside of a larger organization is that other people may have better ideas than you have.”

Private equity firms often set up governance structures to give physicians some measure of control. Dr. Lindstrom said the governing board of his former practice is solely made up of physicians and deals with local issues such as what office doctors will work in and how many patients they will see. Waud Capital has control of the Unifeye board of directors, but it mainly deals with larger issues, such as acquisition of more practices, he said.

In rare instances, private equity gives doctors control. Dr. Falcone said that from the start of USACS, doctors owned 65% of the company, and in 2020, the physician partners bought out Welsh Carson. “Then we engaged the private equity firm Apollo Global Management, which lent us money for the buyout and became our capital partner, with the doctors now owning 98% of the company,” he said.

On the other hand, some private equity arrangements reportedly have little regard for doctors’ well-being, especially if they are new doctors who didn’t participate in the deal and don’t have equity in it. Dr. Zhu recalled that a new physician was recruited by a practice and was promised a partnership track, but she wasn’t told that the partners were negotiating a private equity deal. “She didn’t find out until the practice was sold months later,” Dr. Zhu said. “The chances of her getting any equity now are unclear.”

Making sure that you pick a company that has your interests at heart requires a lot of digging. Dr. Lindstrom said he and his partners took 3 years to make a decision. They hired a broker to pick the 10 best private equity firms. Then they met with those companies and hired a law firm and an accounting firm to assess them. As the partners inched toward a deal, they voted on each of five critical steps in the decision-making process, he said. He noted that each vote was unanimous.
 

Impact of private equity

“Private equity deals are changing the health care landscape,” Mr. Wall said. “They are creating large, independent practices that help physicians remain independent from hospital systems and potentially have the clout to get more favorable reimbursements.”

“There is a lot of misunderstanding and mistrust among physicians about private equity,” Dr. Benavides said. “I imagine it will take a while for it to be accepted.”

Until the COVID pandemic, the annual number of private equity deals for doctors had been rising. Will it recover that pace? Mr. Pinto said rising interest rates may dampen activity in the near future.

“The private equity firm often performs a leveraged buyout using borrowed money,” he explained. “This works better when interest rates are low, but interest rates are trending higher. Private equity firms aren’t going away, but they may have to be less generous as the cost of money rises.”

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

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide formulated for treating obesity (Wegovy) had a roaring takeoff a little more than a year ago, with surging patient demand after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved it in June 2021. But starting doses of the Wegovy form of semaglutide went missing in action starting late 2021 and continue to date, frustrating patients and their health care providers. 

The arrival of Wegovy last year was hailed by obesity medicine specialists and others as a “game changer” for treating people with obesity because of semaglutide’s proven safety and efficacy at the subcutaneous dose of 2.4 mg delivered once a week to produce at least 15% weight loss in half the people who received it, as documented last year in results from one of the drug’s pivotal clinical trials.

But during the months following semaglutide’s approval for treating obesity (it also received an FDA marketing nod in late 2017 as Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes), a worldwide shortage of Wegovy, including in the United States, emerged.

A manufacturing glitch shut down the primary location for production of U.S.-bound Wegovy injector pens for several months starting in late 2021, according to a December report from Novo Nordisk, the company that makes and markets the agent. (The Wegovy production issue appears to have had a very modest impact, especially in U.S. pharmacies, on the supply of semaglutide formulated as Ozempic, also marketed by Novo Nordisk, although Wegovy supply and demand have dramatically limited Ozempic availability in Australia.)
 

‘Unprecedented demand’ for Wegovy derailed when plant went offline

The supply side for Wegovy became so hopelessly broken that just months after U.S. sales began and immediately skyrocketed, Novo Nordisk made the remarkable decision to pull starting doses of Wegovy from the market to make it much harder to initiate patients (semaglutide and other GLP-1 agonists require gradual dose ramp-up to avoid gastrointestinal side effects), and the company publicly implored clinicians to not start new patients on the agent, which is where the status remains as of early August 2022.

Novo Nordisk’s financial report for the second quarter of 2022, released on Aug. 3, said the company “expects to make all Wegovy dose strengths available in the United States towards the end of 2022.”

A Dear Health Care Provider letter that Novo Nordisk posted on its U.S. Wegovy website last spring cited “unprecedented demand” that exceeded every prior product launch in the company’s history. It forced Novo Nordisk to pull the plug on all U.S. promotion of Wegovy and compelled the company to ask U.S. clinicians to halt new patient starts.

“I stopped offering Wegovy to new patients” since about the beginning of 2022, says Lauren D. Oshman, MD, a family and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “It’s very frustrating to not have patients [with obesity] receive the optimal treatment available.” Although she adds that she tries to match obesity treatments to each patient’s clinical needs, and a GLP-1 agonist is not the first choice for every person with obesity.

“It was a disastrous rollout,” says Catherine W. Varney, DO, a family and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “It’s frustrating to know that the treatment is there but not being able to use it,” she said in an interview.

“I had about 800 patients on Wegovy” when the supply dropped earlier this year, and “I couldn’t handle the volume of messages that I got from patients,” recalls Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center, Boston. “It was painful,” she said in an interview.

“Frustrating and chaotic,” is the description from Ivania M. Rizo, MD, director of obesity medicine at Boston Medical Center.
 

The liraglutide/Saxenda workaround

The upshot is that people with obesity and their health care providers have been busy devising workarounds to try to meet the intense demand for this drug-assisted approach to appetite control and weight loss. Their tactics run a wide gamut based on the crazy-quilt diversity of health insurance coverage across America.

Because the bottleneck for starting Wegovy resulted from unavailable starting doses (dosing starts at 0.25 mg delivered subcutaneously once a week, eventually ramping up to a maximum of 2.4 mg weekly), one option was to start patients on a different GLP-1 agonist, such as liraglutide (Saxenda, approved for obesity).

Starting a patient on liraglutide involves the same sort of up-titration and acclimation to a GLP-1 agonist that semaglutide requires, and transition between these agents seems feasible for at least some. It also means daily injections of liraglutide rather than the weekly schedule for semaglutide, although some patients prefer maintaining a daily dosing schedule. Another limitation of liraglutide is that evidence shows it is not nearly as effective for weight loss as semaglutide.

Results from the head-to-head STEP 8 trial, published in JAMA, showed an average weight loss from baseline of about 16% with semaglutide and about 6% with liraglutide (and about 2% with placebo).
 

A ‘reasonable’ evidence base, but more work

Changing from Saxenda to Wegovy, or from Wegovy to Saxenda, “would be reasonably evidence-based medicine,” said Dr. Oshman in an interview. She has managed a Wegovy-to-Saxenda switch for a “handful” of patients to deal with Wegovy shortages, but she has not yet moved anyone to Wegovy after a Saxenda initiation.

“No prospective study has looked at this transition,” but dose equivalence tables exist based on expert opinion, noted Dr. Oshman, as in this 2020 report.

Dr. Varney has several patients on the Saxenda-to-Wegovy track. She up-titrates patients on Saxenda to the maximum daily dose of 3.0 mg and then switches them to the 1.7 mg weekly dose of Wegovy, one of the “destination” Wegovy doses that has remained generally available during the shortage. But Dr. Varney’s experience is that only half of her patients made the changeover smoothly, with the others having “severe gastrointestinal distress,” including vomiting, she notes.

Dr. Fitch has also successfully used this Saxenda-to-Wegovy approach for some of her patients, but it hasn’t been easy.

“It’s more work and more prior authorizations. It’s harder and adds a layer of stress,” but, Dr. Fitch adds, “people are willing to work on it because the weight loss is worth it.”

The liraglutide to semaglutide shuffle is “doable,” says Dr. Rizo, “but I’m looking forward to not having to do it and being able to just start Wegovy.”
 

The tirzepatide coupon program works ‘off label’ for obesity

Another workaround depends on the FDA approval in May for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) for type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide is a related GLP-1 agonist that also adds a second incretin-like agonist activity that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Soon after approval, Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide, started a U.S. coupon program geared exclusively to people with commercial insurance. Within certain refill and dollar limits, the program lets patients buy tirzepatide at pharmacies at an out-of-pocket cost of $25 for a 4-week supply (tirzepatide is also dosed by weekly subcutaneous injections). The program will extend into 2023.

Novo Nordisk offered U.S. patients with commercial insurance a similar discount when Wegovy first hit the U.S. market in 2021, but the program closed down once the supply shortage began.

Despite tirzepatide’s current approval only for type 2 diabetes, Dr. Varney has been successfully prescribing it to patients without diabetes off-label for weight loss.

“The coupons still work even when tirzepatide is used off-label,” she notes. And while the drug’s rollout is still only a couple of months old, so far, it’s gone “beautifully” with no hints of supply issues, she says.

But a major drawback to relying on an introductory coupon program that makes these agents affordable to patients is their ability to maintain treatment once the discounts inevitably end.

“We try to only prescribe agents that patients can continue to access,” says Dr. Fitch, who has had some patients with commercial insurance start on Wegovy with coupon discounts only to later lose access.

Many commercial U.S. insurers do not cover obesity treatments, a decision often driven by the employers who sponsor the coverage, she notes.

Study results have documented that when people with obesity stop taking a GLP-1 agonist their lost weight rebounds, as in a study that tracked people who stopped taking semaglutide.

Dr. Fitch has had success prescribing tirzepatide to patients with obesity but without diabetes who have certain types of Medicare drug coverage policies, which often do not deny off-label drug coverage. That approach works until patients reach the “donut hole” in their drug coverage and are faced with a certain level of out-of-pocket costs that can balloon to several thousand dollars.
 

Even more workarounds

Other approaches patients have used to acquire Wegovy include purchasing it in other countries, such as Canada or Brazil, says Dr. Fitch. But prices outside the United States, while substantially lower, can still be a barrier for many patients, notes Dr. Oshman.

Semaglutide in Canada goes for about $300 for a 4-week supply, roughly a quarter the U.S. price, she says, but is “still too high for many of my patients.”

Intense patient demand sometimes bordering on desperation has prompted some to seek semaglutide from private compounding pharmacies, a step clinicians regard as downright dangerous.

“Semaglutide from compounding pharmacies is not known to be safe. We feel strongly that it’s not something that people should do,” says Dr. Fitch.

“Compounding pharmacies have no FDA regulation. People don’t know what they’re getting. It’s dangerous,” agrees Dr. Varney. Physicians who refer people for privately compounded semaglutide “are taking advantage of desperate people,” she adds.

Although it seems likely that Novo Nordisk will soon sort out the supply problems and Wegovy will once again become more widely available, some of the issues patients have had with access to the weight loss medication stem from more systemic issues in the United States health insurance landscape: an unwillingness by payers to cover the costs of weight loss medications, a shortcoming that also exists for Medicare and Medicaid.

“We need to make obesity treatment a standard benefit, and not something that can be carved out,” says Dr. Fitch. People with obesity “deserve access to effective treatments for their disease,” she declares.

Dr. Oshman, Dr. Varney, and Dr. Rizo have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fitch has reported being an advisor to Jenny Craig.

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

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide formulated for treating obesity (Wegovy) had a roaring takeoff a little more than a year ago, with surging patient demand after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved it in June 2021. But starting doses of the Wegovy form of semaglutide went missing in action starting late 2021 and continue to date, frustrating patients and their health care providers. 

The arrival of Wegovy last year was hailed by obesity medicine specialists and others as a “game changer” for treating people with obesity because of semaglutide’s proven safety and efficacy at the subcutaneous dose of 2.4 mg delivered once a week to produce at least 15% weight loss in half the people who received it, as documented last year in results from one of the drug’s pivotal clinical trials.

But during the months following semaglutide’s approval for treating obesity (it also received an FDA marketing nod in late 2017 as Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes), a worldwide shortage of Wegovy, including in the United States, emerged.

A manufacturing glitch shut down the primary location for production of U.S.-bound Wegovy injector pens for several months starting in late 2021, according to a December report from Novo Nordisk, the company that makes and markets the agent. (The Wegovy production issue appears to have had a very modest impact, especially in U.S. pharmacies, on the supply of semaglutide formulated as Ozempic, also marketed by Novo Nordisk, although Wegovy supply and demand have dramatically limited Ozempic availability in Australia.)
 

‘Unprecedented demand’ for Wegovy derailed when plant went offline

The supply side for Wegovy became so hopelessly broken that just months after U.S. sales began and immediately skyrocketed, Novo Nordisk made the remarkable decision to pull starting doses of Wegovy from the market to make it much harder to initiate patients (semaglutide and other GLP-1 agonists require gradual dose ramp-up to avoid gastrointestinal side effects), and the company publicly implored clinicians to not start new patients on the agent, which is where the status remains as of early August 2022.

Novo Nordisk’s financial report for the second quarter of 2022, released on Aug. 3, said the company “expects to make all Wegovy dose strengths available in the United States towards the end of 2022.”

A Dear Health Care Provider letter that Novo Nordisk posted on its U.S. Wegovy website last spring cited “unprecedented demand” that exceeded every prior product launch in the company’s history. It forced Novo Nordisk to pull the plug on all U.S. promotion of Wegovy and compelled the company to ask U.S. clinicians to halt new patient starts.

“I stopped offering Wegovy to new patients” since about the beginning of 2022, says Lauren D. Oshman, MD, a family and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “It’s very frustrating to not have patients [with obesity] receive the optimal treatment available.” Although she adds that she tries to match obesity treatments to each patient’s clinical needs, and a GLP-1 agonist is not the first choice for every person with obesity.

“It was a disastrous rollout,” says Catherine W. Varney, DO, a family and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “It’s frustrating to know that the treatment is there but not being able to use it,” she said in an interview.

“I had about 800 patients on Wegovy” when the supply dropped earlier this year, and “I couldn’t handle the volume of messages that I got from patients,” recalls Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center, Boston. “It was painful,” she said in an interview.

“Frustrating and chaotic,” is the description from Ivania M. Rizo, MD, director of obesity medicine at Boston Medical Center.
 

The liraglutide/Saxenda workaround

The upshot is that people with obesity and their health care providers have been busy devising workarounds to try to meet the intense demand for this drug-assisted approach to appetite control and weight loss. Their tactics run a wide gamut based on the crazy-quilt diversity of health insurance coverage across America.

Because the bottleneck for starting Wegovy resulted from unavailable starting doses (dosing starts at 0.25 mg delivered subcutaneously once a week, eventually ramping up to a maximum of 2.4 mg weekly), one option was to start patients on a different GLP-1 agonist, such as liraglutide (Saxenda, approved for obesity).

Starting a patient on liraglutide involves the same sort of up-titration and acclimation to a GLP-1 agonist that semaglutide requires, and transition between these agents seems feasible for at least some. It also means daily injections of liraglutide rather than the weekly schedule for semaglutide, although some patients prefer maintaining a daily dosing schedule. Another limitation of liraglutide is that evidence shows it is not nearly as effective for weight loss as semaglutide.

Results from the head-to-head STEP 8 trial, published in JAMA, showed an average weight loss from baseline of about 16% with semaglutide and about 6% with liraglutide (and about 2% with placebo).
 

A ‘reasonable’ evidence base, but more work

Changing from Saxenda to Wegovy, or from Wegovy to Saxenda, “would be reasonably evidence-based medicine,” said Dr. Oshman in an interview. She has managed a Wegovy-to-Saxenda switch for a “handful” of patients to deal with Wegovy shortages, but she has not yet moved anyone to Wegovy after a Saxenda initiation.

“No prospective study has looked at this transition,” but dose equivalence tables exist based on expert opinion, noted Dr. Oshman, as in this 2020 report.

Dr. Varney has several patients on the Saxenda-to-Wegovy track. She up-titrates patients on Saxenda to the maximum daily dose of 3.0 mg and then switches them to the 1.7 mg weekly dose of Wegovy, one of the “destination” Wegovy doses that has remained generally available during the shortage. But Dr. Varney’s experience is that only half of her patients made the changeover smoothly, with the others having “severe gastrointestinal distress,” including vomiting, she notes.

Dr. Fitch has also successfully used this Saxenda-to-Wegovy approach for some of her patients, but it hasn’t been easy.

“It’s more work and more prior authorizations. It’s harder and adds a layer of stress,” but, Dr. Fitch adds, “people are willing to work on it because the weight loss is worth it.”

The liraglutide to semaglutide shuffle is “doable,” says Dr. Rizo, “but I’m looking forward to not having to do it and being able to just start Wegovy.”
 

The tirzepatide coupon program works ‘off label’ for obesity

Another workaround depends on the FDA approval in May for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) for type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide is a related GLP-1 agonist that also adds a second incretin-like agonist activity that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Soon after approval, Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide, started a U.S. coupon program geared exclusively to people with commercial insurance. Within certain refill and dollar limits, the program lets patients buy tirzepatide at pharmacies at an out-of-pocket cost of $25 for a 4-week supply (tirzepatide is also dosed by weekly subcutaneous injections). The program will extend into 2023.

Novo Nordisk offered U.S. patients with commercial insurance a similar discount when Wegovy first hit the U.S. market in 2021, but the program closed down once the supply shortage began.

Despite tirzepatide’s current approval only for type 2 diabetes, Dr. Varney has been successfully prescribing it to patients without diabetes off-label for weight loss.

“The coupons still work even when tirzepatide is used off-label,” she notes. And while the drug’s rollout is still only a couple of months old, so far, it’s gone “beautifully” with no hints of supply issues, she says.

But a major drawback to relying on an introductory coupon program that makes these agents affordable to patients is their ability to maintain treatment once the discounts inevitably end.

“We try to only prescribe agents that patients can continue to access,” says Dr. Fitch, who has had some patients with commercial insurance start on Wegovy with coupon discounts only to later lose access.

Many commercial U.S. insurers do not cover obesity treatments, a decision often driven by the employers who sponsor the coverage, she notes.

Study results have documented that when people with obesity stop taking a GLP-1 agonist their lost weight rebounds, as in a study that tracked people who stopped taking semaglutide.

Dr. Fitch has had success prescribing tirzepatide to patients with obesity but without diabetes who have certain types of Medicare drug coverage policies, which often do not deny off-label drug coverage. That approach works until patients reach the “donut hole” in their drug coverage and are faced with a certain level of out-of-pocket costs that can balloon to several thousand dollars.
 

Even more workarounds

Other approaches patients have used to acquire Wegovy include purchasing it in other countries, such as Canada or Brazil, says Dr. Fitch. But prices outside the United States, while substantially lower, can still be a barrier for many patients, notes Dr. Oshman.

Semaglutide in Canada goes for about $300 for a 4-week supply, roughly a quarter the U.S. price, she says, but is “still too high for many of my patients.”

Intense patient demand sometimes bordering on desperation has prompted some to seek semaglutide from private compounding pharmacies, a step clinicians regard as downright dangerous.

“Semaglutide from compounding pharmacies is not known to be safe. We feel strongly that it’s not something that people should do,” says Dr. Fitch.

“Compounding pharmacies have no FDA regulation. People don’t know what they’re getting. It’s dangerous,” agrees Dr. Varney. Physicians who refer people for privately compounded semaglutide “are taking advantage of desperate people,” she adds.

Although it seems likely that Novo Nordisk will soon sort out the supply problems and Wegovy will once again become more widely available, some of the issues patients have had with access to the weight loss medication stem from more systemic issues in the United States health insurance landscape: an unwillingness by payers to cover the costs of weight loss medications, a shortcoming that also exists for Medicare and Medicaid.

“We need to make obesity treatment a standard benefit, and not something that can be carved out,” says Dr. Fitch. People with obesity “deserve access to effective treatments for their disease,” she declares.

Dr. Oshman, Dr. Varney, and Dr. Rizo have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fitch has reported being an advisor to Jenny Craig.

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

The glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist semaglutide formulated for treating obesity (Wegovy) had a roaring takeoff a little more than a year ago, with surging patient demand after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved it in June 2021. But starting doses of the Wegovy form of semaglutide went missing in action starting late 2021 and continue to date, frustrating patients and their health care providers. 

The arrival of Wegovy last year was hailed by obesity medicine specialists and others as a “game changer” for treating people with obesity because of semaglutide’s proven safety and efficacy at the subcutaneous dose of 2.4 mg delivered once a week to produce at least 15% weight loss in half the people who received it, as documented last year in results from one of the drug’s pivotal clinical trials.

But during the months following semaglutide’s approval for treating obesity (it also received an FDA marketing nod in late 2017 as Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes), a worldwide shortage of Wegovy, including in the United States, emerged.

A manufacturing glitch shut down the primary location for production of U.S.-bound Wegovy injector pens for several months starting in late 2021, according to a December report from Novo Nordisk, the company that makes and markets the agent. (The Wegovy production issue appears to have had a very modest impact, especially in U.S. pharmacies, on the supply of semaglutide formulated as Ozempic, also marketed by Novo Nordisk, although Wegovy supply and demand have dramatically limited Ozempic availability in Australia.)
 

‘Unprecedented demand’ for Wegovy derailed when plant went offline

The supply side for Wegovy became so hopelessly broken that just months after U.S. sales began and immediately skyrocketed, Novo Nordisk made the remarkable decision to pull starting doses of Wegovy from the market to make it much harder to initiate patients (semaglutide and other GLP-1 agonists require gradual dose ramp-up to avoid gastrointestinal side effects), and the company publicly implored clinicians to not start new patients on the agent, which is where the status remains as of early August 2022.

Novo Nordisk’s financial report for the second quarter of 2022, released on Aug. 3, said the company “expects to make all Wegovy dose strengths available in the United States towards the end of 2022.”

A Dear Health Care Provider letter that Novo Nordisk posted on its U.S. Wegovy website last spring cited “unprecedented demand” that exceeded every prior product launch in the company’s history. It forced Novo Nordisk to pull the plug on all U.S. promotion of Wegovy and compelled the company to ask U.S. clinicians to halt new patient starts.

“I stopped offering Wegovy to new patients” since about the beginning of 2022, says Lauren D. Oshman, MD, a family and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “It’s very frustrating to not have patients [with obesity] receive the optimal treatment available.” Although she adds that she tries to match obesity treatments to each patient’s clinical needs, and a GLP-1 agonist is not the first choice for every person with obesity.

“It was a disastrous rollout,” says Catherine W. Varney, DO, a family and obesity medicine specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. “It’s frustrating to know that the treatment is there but not being able to use it,” she said in an interview.

“I had about 800 patients on Wegovy” when the supply dropped earlier this year, and “I couldn’t handle the volume of messages that I got from patients,” recalls Angela Fitch, MD, associate director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Weight Center, Boston. “It was painful,” she said in an interview.

“Frustrating and chaotic,” is the description from Ivania M. Rizo, MD, director of obesity medicine at Boston Medical Center.
 

The liraglutide/Saxenda workaround

The upshot is that people with obesity and their health care providers have been busy devising workarounds to try to meet the intense demand for this drug-assisted approach to appetite control and weight loss. Their tactics run a wide gamut based on the crazy-quilt diversity of health insurance coverage across America.

Because the bottleneck for starting Wegovy resulted from unavailable starting doses (dosing starts at 0.25 mg delivered subcutaneously once a week, eventually ramping up to a maximum of 2.4 mg weekly), one option was to start patients on a different GLP-1 agonist, such as liraglutide (Saxenda, approved for obesity).

Starting a patient on liraglutide involves the same sort of up-titration and acclimation to a GLP-1 agonist that semaglutide requires, and transition between these agents seems feasible for at least some. It also means daily injections of liraglutide rather than the weekly schedule for semaglutide, although some patients prefer maintaining a daily dosing schedule. Another limitation of liraglutide is that evidence shows it is not nearly as effective for weight loss as semaglutide.

Results from the head-to-head STEP 8 trial, published in JAMA, showed an average weight loss from baseline of about 16% with semaglutide and about 6% with liraglutide (and about 2% with placebo).
 

A ‘reasonable’ evidence base, but more work

Changing from Saxenda to Wegovy, or from Wegovy to Saxenda, “would be reasonably evidence-based medicine,” said Dr. Oshman in an interview. She has managed a Wegovy-to-Saxenda switch for a “handful” of patients to deal with Wegovy shortages, but she has not yet moved anyone to Wegovy after a Saxenda initiation.

“No prospective study has looked at this transition,” but dose equivalence tables exist based on expert opinion, noted Dr. Oshman, as in this 2020 report.

Dr. Varney has several patients on the Saxenda-to-Wegovy track. She up-titrates patients on Saxenda to the maximum daily dose of 3.0 mg and then switches them to the 1.7 mg weekly dose of Wegovy, one of the “destination” Wegovy doses that has remained generally available during the shortage. But Dr. Varney’s experience is that only half of her patients made the changeover smoothly, with the others having “severe gastrointestinal distress,” including vomiting, she notes.

Dr. Fitch has also successfully used this Saxenda-to-Wegovy approach for some of her patients, but it hasn’t been easy.

“It’s more work and more prior authorizations. It’s harder and adds a layer of stress,” but, Dr. Fitch adds, “people are willing to work on it because the weight loss is worth it.”

The liraglutide to semaglutide shuffle is “doable,” says Dr. Rizo, “but I’m looking forward to not having to do it and being able to just start Wegovy.”
 

The tirzepatide coupon program works ‘off label’ for obesity

Another workaround depends on the FDA approval in May for tirzepatide (Mounjaro) for type 2 diabetes. Tirzepatide is a related GLP-1 agonist that also adds a second incretin-like agonist activity that mimics the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide.

Soon after approval, Lilly, the company that markets tirzepatide, started a U.S. coupon program geared exclusively to people with commercial insurance. Within certain refill and dollar limits, the program lets patients buy tirzepatide at pharmacies at an out-of-pocket cost of $25 for a 4-week supply (tirzepatide is also dosed by weekly subcutaneous injections). The program will extend into 2023.

Novo Nordisk offered U.S. patients with commercial insurance a similar discount when Wegovy first hit the U.S. market in 2021, but the program closed down once the supply shortage began.

Despite tirzepatide’s current approval only for type 2 diabetes, Dr. Varney has been successfully prescribing it to patients without diabetes off-label for weight loss.

“The coupons still work even when tirzepatide is used off-label,” she notes. And while the drug’s rollout is still only a couple of months old, so far, it’s gone “beautifully” with no hints of supply issues, she says.

But a major drawback to relying on an introductory coupon program that makes these agents affordable to patients is their ability to maintain treatment once the discounts inevitably end.

“We try to only prescribe agents that patients can continue to access,” says Dr. Fitch, who has had some patients with commercial insurance start on Wegovy with coupon discounts only to later lose access.

Many commercial U.S. insurers do not cover obesity treatments, a decision often driven by the employers who sponsor the coverage, she notes.

Study results have documented that when people with obesity stop taking a GLP-1 agonist their lost weight rebounds, as in a study that tracked people who stopped taking semaglutide.

Dr. Fitch has had success prescribing tirzepatide to patients with obesity but without diabetes who have certain types of Medicare drug coverage policies, which often do not deny off-label drug coverage. That approach works until patients reach the “donut hole” in their drug coverage and are faced with a certain level of out-of-pocket costs that can balloon to several thousand dollars.
 

Even more workarounds

Other approaches patients have used to acquire Wegovy include purchasing it in other countries, such as Canada or Brazil, says Dr. Fitch. But prices outside the United States, while substantially lower, can still be a barrier for many patients, notes Dr. Oshman.

Semaglutide in Canada goes for about $300 for a 4-week supply, roughly a quarter the U.S. price, she says, but is “still too high for many of my patients.”

Intense patient demand sometimes bordering on desperation has prompted some to seek semaglutide from private compounding pharmacies, a step clinicians regard as downright dangerous.

“Semaglutide from compounding pharmacies is not known to be safe. We feel strongly that it’s not something that people should do,” says Dr. Fitch.

“Compounding pharmacies have no FDA regulation. People don’t know what they’re getting. It’s dangerous,” agrees Dr. Varney. Physicians who refer people for privately compounded semaglutide “are taking advantage of desperate people,” she adds.

Although it seems likely that Novo Nordisk will soon sort out the supply problems and Wegovy will once again become more widely available, some of the issues patients have had with access to the weight loss medication stem from more systemic issues in the United States health insurance landscape: an unwillingness by payers to cover the costs of weight loss medications, a shortcoming that also exists for Medicare and Medicaid.

“We need to make obesity treatment a standard benefit, and not something that can be carved out,” says Dr. Fitch. People with obesity “deserve access to effective treatments for their disease,” she declares.

Dr. Oshman, Dr. Varney, and Dr. Rizo have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fitch has reported being an advisor to Jenny Craig.

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

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved all-cause and cardiac death at 5 years in patients with severe aortic stenosis and LVEF less than 50%, new research shows.

Further analyses revealed a significant interaction by sex, with the mortality benefit largely in women.

“It’s absolutely fascinating,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said of the finding. “We know that women are more likely to have concentric hypertrophy, that they have lesser degrees of fibrosis, and smaller ventricles, and, of course, they’re in general less affected by coronary artery disease and MIs [myocardial infarctions]. All of those things in my mind, at least that’s what I assumed ahead of time, would make it more likely for women’s hearts to recover.”

“But that’s actually not what we found,” he continued. “We didn’t see a difference between the sexes in terms of likelihood of recovery. But what we saw is that the survival benefit, that associates with improvement in EF, was almost completely driven by women. So women really seem to be reaping that benefit in a manner that is unique and very different from what we saw in men.”

Dr. Elmariah noted that the reason for this benefit is unclear but points to the differences in biology for LV remodeling. “Clearly there are several details there that warrant further attention and more research.”

Suzanne J. Baron, MD, director of interventional cardiology research at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Mass., said in an email that the finding of a substantial long-term survival benefit was “a bit surprising.”

Several studies have suggested that women may derive a greater benefit from TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement, and meta-analyses have demonstrated short and intermediate-term survival after TAVR is better in women, compared with in men, she pointed out. However, the mediating mechanism for this finding has never been clearly elucidated.

“Certainly, the sex differences in LVEF improvement after TAVR observed in this study, which could be related to sex differences in LV remodeling and LV mass regression, may now give us a clue as to why these sex-specific survival differences after TAVR persist,” Dr. Baron said.
 

More data amassed

Previous research in smaller cohorts with follow-up out to 1 year have shown an association between early LVEF improvement after TAVR and better survival. This includes a 2013 study by the investigators in high-risk patients in PARTNER-1 and a separate 2016 study in patients in the CoreValve extreme and high surgical risk trials.

Now, with longer follow-up amassed, the investigators examined data from 659 high- or intermediate-risk patients with severe stenosis and LVEF less than 50% who underwent transfemoral TAVR in the PARTNER 1, 2, and S3 trials and registries between July 2007 and April 2015.

Their mean age was 82.4 years, 71% were men, and 89.7% were White individuals. During the study period, 55.6% of the cohort died.

As reported in JAMA Cardiology, 32.8% of patients had early LVEF improvement, defined as an increase of at least 10% percentage points at 30 days after TAVR (mean change, 16.4%).

This compares with about 50%-60% of patients in the earlier studies, likely owing to the relatively higher baseline LVEF, especially in the intermediate-risk cohort, the authors suggested.

Independent predictors of lower likelihood of early LVEF improvement were previous MI, diabetes, cancer, higher baseline LVEF, larger LV end-diastolic diameter, and larger aortic valve area (AVA), whereas higher body mass index and higher stroke volume index predicted greater likelihood of LV recovery.

At 5 years, patients with versus without improved early LV improvement had lower risks of all-cause death (50.0% vs. 58.4%; P = .04) and cardiac death (29.5% vs. 38.1%; P = .05).

In multivariable analyses, each 5%-point increase in LVEF after TAVR was associated with a 6% lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; P = .04) and 10% lower risk of cardiac death (HR, 0.90; P = .02).

Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated an inflection point above a 10% change in LVEF beyond which there was a steep decline in all-cause mortality with increasing degree of LVEF improvement.

There were no significant differences in rehospitalization, New York Heart Association functional class, or Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score at 5 years in patients with and without early LVEF improvement.

“I think what this really gets to is what is the reason behind the LV dysfunction in the first place,” said Dr. Elmariah, soon to be joining the University of California, San Francisco. “We know that TAVR cures aortic stenosis, so if the LV dysfunction is primarily related to the valve itself, hopefully those patients are going to recover.”

On the other hand, if the patient has LV dysfunction because of a prior myocardial infarction or cardiomyopathy and then developed aortic stenosis, “you can treat the aortic stenosis but the heart is still diseased from whatever process was affecting it previously and so it’s not likely to recover in those scenarios,” he added.

The results can be used for counseling patients and highlight the need to optimize goal-directed medical therapy in those with valvular heart disease, Dr. Elmariah suggested.

“Often, patients with aortic stenosis are on miniscule doses of many of the heart failure agents because people are worried about the hemodynamic consequences and they’re worried that patients won’t tolerate these medications,” he said. “But it’s very important for us to aggressively try to treat the heart failure that is affecting these patients in order to hopefully increase the chances that their left ventricles will recover and, hopefully, that they will have improved survival.”

Dr. Baron said that “this study clearly demonstrates that patients with reduced LVEF and severe aortic stenosis can benefit from TAVR and that early improvement in LVEF is an important prognostic marker for this population.”

In Dr. Baron and colleagues’ earlier analysis of 11,000 patients who underwent TAVR as part of the transcatheter valve therapy registry, only low aortic valve gradient but not LV dysfunction was associated with higher adjusted 1-year mortality. Asked about the finding, she noted that patients were evaluated based on LV function at baseline and not for a difference in outcomes based on LVEF improvement after TAVR.

“As such, I think that these two studies are actually complementary,” Dr. Baron said. “Together, they suggest that a low LVEF should not preclude a patient from receiving TAVR and if the patient does experience a 10% increase in LVEF after TAVR, then their 5-year prognosis is improved.”

Dr. Elmariah reports grants from the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Svelte Medical and has received consulting fees from Medtronic and AstraZeneca. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the paper. The PARTNER trials and registries and this analysis were supported by Edwards Lifesciences. Edwards was involved in the design and conduct of the study including collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Dr. Baron reports receiving research grant funding from Abiomed and Boston Scientific; consulting/medical advisory board fees from Boston Scientific, Shockwave and Biotronik; and speaking honoraria from Medtronic and Zoll.

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

Screening for atrial fibrillation with wearable devices is cost effective, when compared with either no screening or screening using traditional methods, a new study concludes.

“Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) is an important cause of stroke. Screening for AFib using wrist-worn wearable devices may prevent strokes, but their cost effectiveness is unknown,” write Wanyi Chen, PhD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues, in JAMA Health Forum.

The investigators used a microsimulation decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of these devices to screen for undiagnosed AFib.

The model comprised 30 million simulated individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the United States population aged 65 years or older.

The model looked at eight AFib screening strategies: six using wrist-worn wearable devices (either watch or band photoplethysmography with or without watch or band electrocardiography) and two using traditional modalities (that is, pulse palpation and 12-lead electrocardiogram) versus no screening.

The primary outcome was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio, defined as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Secondary outcomes included rates of stroke and major bleeding.

In the model, the mean age was 72.5 years and 50% were women.

All 6 screening strategies using wrist-worn wearable devices were estimated to be more cost effective than no screening. The model showed that the range of QALYs gained, compared with no screening, was 226 to 957 per 100,000 individuals.

The wrist-worn devices were also associated with greater relative benefit than screening using traditional modalities, as the range of QALYs gained, compared with no screening, was –116 to 93 per 100,000 individuals.

Compared with no screening, screening with wrist-worn wearable devices was associated with a reduction in stroke incidence by 20 to 23 per 100,000 person-years but an increase in major bleeding by 20 to 44 per 100,000 person years.

Overall, the preferred strategy for screening was wearable photoplethysmography, followed by wearable electrocardiography with patch monitor confirmation. This strategy had an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $57,894 per QALY, “meeting the acceptability threshold of $100,000 per QALY,” the authors write.

The cost effectiveness of screening was consistent across multiple clinically relevant scenarios, including screening a general population aged 50 years or older with risk factors for stroke, the authors report.

“When deployed within specific AFib screening pathways, wearable devices are likely to be an important component of cost-effective AFib screening,” the investigators conclude.

Study based on modeled data

“This study is the first simulation of various screening strategies for atrial fibrillation using wearable devices and suggests that wearable devices, in particular wrist-worn wearables, in an elderly population, [are] estimated to be cost-effective,” Emma Svennberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, told this news organization.

“I find this study interesting, as the adoption of wearables amongst individuals is high and increasing, hence many wearers will screen themselves for arrhythmias (even if health care recommendations are discordant), and the potential costs for society have been unknown,” said Dr. Svennberg, who was not part of this study.

“Of course, no study is without its flaws, and here one must note that the study is based on modeled data alone and not RCTs of the wearable screening strategies ... hence true clinical outcome data is missing,” Dr. Svennberg added.

The large STROKESTOP study, on which she was the lead investigator, “presented data based on true clinical outcomes at ESC 2021 (European Society of Cardiology) and showed cost effectiveness,” Dr. Svennberg said.

The study authors report financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Medtronic, Pfizer, UpToDate, American Heart Association, IBM, Bayer AG, Novartis, MyoKardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Heart Rhythm Society, Avania Consulting, Apple, Premier, the National Institutes of Health, Invitae, Blackstone Life Sciences, Flatiron, and Value Analytics Labs. Dr. Svennberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening for atrial fibrillation with wearable devices is cost effective, when compared with either no screening or screening using traditional methods, a new study concludes.

“Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) is an important cause of stroke. Screening for AFib using wrist-worn wearable devices may prevent strokes, but their cost effectiveness is unknown,” write Wanyi Chen, PhD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues, in JAMA Health Forum.

The investigators used a microsimulation decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of these devices to screen for undiagnosed AFib.

The model comprised 30 million simulated individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the United States population aged 65 years or older.

The model looked at eight AFib screening strategies: six using wrist-worn wearable devices (either watch or band photoplethysmography with or without watch or band electrocardiography) and two using traditional modalities (that is, pulse palpation and 12-lead electrocardiogram) versus no screening.

The primary outcome was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio, defined as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Secondary outcomes included rates of stroke and major bleeding.

In the model, the mean age was 72.5 years and 50% were women.

All 6 screening strategies using wrist-worn wearable devices were estimated to be more cost effective than no screening. The model showed that the range of QALYs gained, compared with no screening, was 226 to 957 per 100,000 individuals.

The wrist-worn devices were also associated with greater relative benefit than screening using traditional modalities, as the range of QALYs gained, compared with no screening, was –116 to 93 per 100,000 individuals.

Compared with no screening, screening with wrist-worn wearable devices was associated with a reduction in stroke incidence by 20 to 23 per 100,000 person-years but an increase in major bleeding by 20 to 44 per 100,000 person years.

Overall, the preferred strategy for screening was wearable photoplethysmography, followed by wearable electrocardiography with patch monitor confirmation. This strategy had an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $57,894 per QALY, “meeting the acceptability threshold of $100,000 per QALY,” the authors write.

The cost effectiveness of screening was consistent across multiple clinically relevant scenarios, including screening a general population aged 50 years or older with risk factors for stroke, the authors report.

“When deployed within specific AFib screening pathways, wearable devices are likely to be an important component of cost-effective AFib screening,” the investigators conclude.

Study based on modeled data

“This study is the first simulation of various screening strategies for atrial fibrillation using wearable devices and suggests that wearable devices, in particular wrist-worn wearables, in an elderly population, [are] estimated to be cost-effective,” Emma Svennberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, told this news organization.

“I find this study interesting, as the adoption of wearables amongst individuals is high and increasing, hence many wearers will screen themselves for arrhythmias (even if health care recommendations are discordant), and the potential costs for society have been unknown,” said Dr. Svennberg, who was not part of this study.

“Of course, no study is without its flaws, and here one must note that the study is based on modeled data alone and not RCTs of the wearable screening strategies ... hence true clinical outcome data is missing,” Dr. Svennberg added.

The large STROKESTOP study, on which she was the lead investigator, “presented data based on true clinical outcomes at ESC 2021 (European Society of Cardiology) and showed cost effectiveness,” Dr. Svennberg said.

The study authors report financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Medtronic, Pfizer, UpToDate, American Heart Association, IBM, Bayer AG, Novartis, MyoKardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Heart Rhythm Society, Avania Consulting, Apple, Premier, the National Institutes of Health, Invitae, Blackstone Life Sciences, Flatiron, and Value Analytics Labs. Dr. Svennberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Screening for atrial fibrillation with wearable devices is cost effective, when compared with either no screening or screening using traditional methods, a new study concludes.

“Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) is an important cause of stroke. Screening for AFib using wrist-worn wearable devices may prevent strokes, but their cost effectiveness is unknown,” write Wanyi Chen, PhD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues, in JAMA Health Forum.

The investigators used a microsimulation decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of these devices to screen for undiagnosed AFib.

The model comprised 30 million simulated individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the United States population aged 65 years or older.

The model looked at eight AFib screening strategies: six using wrist-worn wearable devices (either watch or band photoplethysmography with or without watch or band electrocardiography) and two using traditional modalities (that is, pulse palpation and 12-lead electrocardiogram) versus no screening.

The primary outcome was the incremental cost effectiveness ratio, defined as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Secondary outcomes included rates of stroke and major bleeding.

In the model, the mean age was 72.5 years and 50% were women.

All 6 screening strategies using wrist-worn wearable devices were estimated to be more cost effective than no screening. The model showed that the range of QALYs gained, compared with no screening, was 226 to 957 per 100,000 individuals.

The wrist-worn devices were also associated with greater relative benefit than screening using traditional modalities, as the range of QALYs gained, compared with no screening, was –116 to 93 per 100,000 individuals.

Compared with no screening, screening with wrist-worn wearable devices was associated with a reduction in stroke incidence by 20 to 23 per 100,000 person-years but an increase in major bleeding by 20 to 44 per 100,000 person years.

Overall, the preferred strategy for screening was wearable photoplethysmography, followed by wearable electrocardiography with patch monitor confirmation. This strategy had an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $57,894 per QALY, “meeting the acceptability threshold of $100,000 per QALY,” the authors write.

The cost effectiveness of screening was consistent across multiple clinically relevant scenarios, including screening a general population aged 50 years or older with risk factors for stroke, the authors report.

“When deployed within specific AFib screening pathways, wearable devices are likely to be an important component of cost-effective AFib screening,” the investigators conclude.

Study based on modeled data

“This study is the first simulation of various screening strategies for atrial fibrillation using wearable devices and suggests that wearable devices, in particular wrist-worn wearables, in an elderly population, [are] estimated to be cost-effective,” Emma Svennberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, told this news organization.

“I find this study interesting, as the adoption of wearables amongst individuals is high and increasing, hence many wearers will screen themselves for arrhythmias (even if health care recommendations are discordant), and the potential costs for society have been unknown,” said Dr. Svennberg, who was not part of this study.

“Of course, no study is without its flaws, and here one must note that the study is based on modeled data alone and not RCTs of the wearable screening strategies ... hence true clinical outcome data is missing,” Dr. Svennberg added.

The large STROKESTOP study, on which she was the lead investigator, “presented data based on true clinical outcomes at ESC 2021 (European Society of Cardiology) and showed cost effectiveness,” Dr. Svennberg said.

The study authors report financial relationships with Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit, Medtronic, Pfizer, UpToDate, American Heart Association, IBM, Bayer AG, Novartis, MyoKardia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Heart Rhythm Society, Avania Consulting, Apple, Premier, the National Institutes of Health, Invitae, Blackstone Life Sciences, Flatiron, and Value Analytics Labs. Dr. Svennberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure but also have a clear impact on hard clinical endpoints, lowering the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death from all causes and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a meta-analysis shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The blood pressure–mediated protective effects of salt substitutes on CVD and death are likely to apply to the roughly 1.28 billion people around the world who have high blood pressure, the researchers say.

“These findings are unlikely to reflect the play of chance and support the adoption of salt substitutes in clinical practice and public health policy as a strategy to reduce dietary sodium intake, increase dietary potassium intake, lower blood pressure, and prevent major cardiovascular events,” they write.

The study was published online  in Heart.
 

Strong support for landmark study

In salt substitutes, a proportion of sodium chloride is replaced with potassium chloride. They are known to help lower blood pressure, but less is known about their impact on hard clinical endpoints, Maoyi Tian, PhD, with Harbin Medical University, China, and the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, and colleagues note in their article.

In the landmark Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS), salt substitutes cut the risk of MI, stroke, and early death, as reported previously by this news organization.

But SSaSS was conducted in China, and it was unclear whether these benefits would apply to people in other parts of the world.

To investigate, Dr. Tian and colleagues pooled data from 21 relevant parallel-group, step-wedge, or cluster randomized controlled trials published through August 2021, with 31,949 participants. The trials were conducted in Europe, the Western Pacific Region, the Americas, and South East Asia and reported the effect of a salt substitute on blood pressure or clinical outcomes.

A meta-analysis of blood pressure data from 19 trials that included 29,528 participants showed that salt substitutes lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.61 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −6.07 to −3.14) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 1.61 mm Hg (95% CI, −2.42 to −0.79).

The proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitutes varied from 33% to 75%; the proportion of potassium ranged from 25% to 65%.

Each 10% lower proportion of sodium chloride in the salt substitute was associated with a 1.53 mm Hg (95% CI, −3.02 to −0.03; P = .045) greater reduction in SBP and a 0.95 mm Hg (95% CI, −1.78 to −0.12; P = .025) greater reduction in DBP.

Reductions in blood pressure appeared consistent, irrespective of country, age, sex, history of high blood pressure, weight, baseline blood pressure, and baseline levels of urinary sodium and potassium.

Clear benefit on hard outcomes

Pooled data on clinical outcomes from five trials that included 24,306 participants, mostly from the SSaSS, showed clear protective effects of salt substitutes on total mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94), CV mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94), and CV events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).

Dr. Tian and colleagues say that “broader population use of salt substitute is supported by the absence of any detectable adverse effect of salt substitutes on hyperkalemia in this review.”

They note, however, that all of the trials took “pragmatic steps to exclude participants at elevated risk of hyperkalemia, seeking to exclude those with chronic kidney disease or using medications that elevate serum potassium.”

Offering perspective on the study, Harlan Krumholz, MD, with Yale New Haven Hospital and Yale School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Conn., said it provides “useful information by bringing together the trial evidence on salt substitutes. The evidence is dominated by the SSaSS, but the others add context.”

Dr. Krumholz said that at this point, he thinks salt substitutes “could be included in recommendations to patients.”

“SSaSS was conducted in villages in China, so that is where the evidence is strongest and most relevant, but this is a low-cost and seemingly safe strategy that could be tried by anyone without contraindications, such as kidney disease or taking a potassium-sparing medication or potassium supplement,” Dr. Krumholz told this news organization.

Johanna Contreras, MD, heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, agrees that in the absence of contraindications, salt substitutes should be recommended.

“Americans put salt on everything and don’t even think about it. The salt substitutes are very helpful,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

“People who don’t have high blood pressure should limit salt intake, because what we have seen is that if you have high blood pressure in your family – even if you don’t have high blood pressure in your 20s or 30s – you’re likely to develop high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said.

“Therefore, it’s wise early on to start protecting yourself and using low salt and salt substitutes,” she added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Tian, Dr. Krumholz, and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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