Stroke

Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.

Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.

The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.

The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).

By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.

“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”

Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).

The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.

The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:

• Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
• High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
• Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.

They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.

The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.

Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.

“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”

The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.

“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”

Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.

Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.

The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.

The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).

By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.

“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”

Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).

The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.

The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:

• Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
• High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
• Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.

They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.

The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.

Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.

“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”

The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.

“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”

Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Recommendations for prescribing exercise to control high blood pressure have been put forward by various medical organizations and expert panels, but finding the bandwidth to craft personalized exercise training for their patients poses a challenge for clinicians.

Now, European cardiology societies have issued a consensus statement that offers an algorithm of sorts for developing personalized exercise programs as part of overall management approach for patients with or at risk of high BP.

The statement, published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology and issued by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Hypertension, claims to be the first document to focus on personalized exercise for BP.

The statement draws on a systematic review, including meta-analyses, to produce guidance on how to lower BP in three specific types of patients: Those with hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg), high-normal blood pressure (130-139/85-89 mm Hg), and normal blood pressure (<130/84 mm Hg).

By making recommendations for these three specific groups, along with providing guidance for combined exercise – that is, blending aerobic exercise with resistance training (RT) – the consensus statement goes one step further than recommendations other organizations have issued, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, said in an interview.

“What it adds is an algorithmic approach, if you will,” said Dr. Martinez, a sports medicine cardiologist at Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “There are some recommendations to help the clinicians to decide what they’re going to offer individuals, but what’s a challenge for us when seeing patients is finding the time to deliver the message and explain how valuable nutrition and exercise are.”

Guidelines, updates, and statements that include the role of exercise in BP control have been issued by the European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American College of Sports Medicine (Med Sci Sports Exercise. 2019;51:1314-23).

The European consensus statement includes the expected range of BP lowering for each activity. For example, aerobic exercise for patients with hypertension should lead to a reduction from –4.9 to –12 mm Hg systolic and –3.4 to –5.8 mm Hg diastolic.

The consensus statement recommends the following exercise priorities based on a patient’s blood pressure:

• Hypertension: Aerobic training (AT) as a first-line exercise therapy; and low- to moderate-intensity RT – equally using dynamic and isometric RT – as second-line therapy. In non-White patients, dynamic RT should be considered as a first-line therapy. RT can be combined with aerobic exercise on an individual basis if the clinician determines either form of RT would provide a metabolic benefit.
• High-to-normal BP: Dynamic RT as a first-line exercise, which the systematic review determined led to greater BP reduction than that of aerobic training. “Isometric RT is likely to elicit similar if not superior BP-lowering effects as [dynamic RT], but the level of evidence is low and the available data are scarce,” wrote first author Henner Hanssen, MD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and coauthors. Combining dynamic resistance training with aerobic training “may be preferable” to dynamic RT alone in patients with a combination of cardiovascular risk factors.
• Normal BP: Isometric RT may be indicated as a first-line intervention in individuals with a family or gestational history or obese or overweight people currently with normal BP. This advice includes a caveat: “The number of studies is limited and the 95% confidence intervals are large,” Dr. Hanssen and coauthors noted. AT is also an option in these patients, with more high-quality meta-analyses than the recommendation for isometric RT. “Hence, the BP-lowering effects of [isometric RT] as compared to AT may be overestimated and both exercise modalities may have similar BP-lowering effects in individuals with normotension,” wrote the consensus statement authors.

They note that more research is needed to validate the BP-lowering effects of combined exercise.

The statement acknowledges the difficulty clinicians face in managing patients with high blood pressure. “From a socioeconomic health perspective, it is a major challenge to develop, promote, and implement individually tailored exercise programs for patients with hypertension under consideration of sustainable costs,” wrote Dr. Hanssen and coauthors.

Dr. Martinez noted that one strength of the consensus statement is that it addresses the impact exercise can have on vascular health and metabolic function. And, it points out existing knowledge gaps.

“Are we going to see greater applicability of this as we use IT health technology?” he asked. “Are wearables and telehealth going to help deliver this message more easily, more frequently? Is there work to be done in terms of differences in gender? Do men and women respond differently, and is there a different exercise prescription based on that as well as ethnicity? We well know there’s a different treatment for African Americans compared to other ethnic groups.”

The statement also raises the stakes for using exercise as part of a multifaceted, integrated approach to hypertension management, he said.

“It’s not enough to talk just about exercise or nutrition, or to just give an antihypertension medicine,” Dr. Martinez said. “Perhaps the sweet spot is in integrating an approach that includes all three.”

Consensus statement coauthor Antonio Coca, MD, reported financial relationships with Abbott, Berlin-Chemie, Biolab, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ferrer, Menarini, Merck, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Coauthor Maria Simonenko, MD, reported financial relationships with Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis. Linda Pescatello, PhD, is lead author of the American College of Sports Medicine 2019 statement. Dr. Hanssen and all other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Martinez has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke who were taken directly to the angiography suite, bypassing the emergency department, received endovascular treatment faster and had better 90-day functional outcomes in a new study.

Results of the ANGIO-CAT trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The study involved patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion, as assessed in the prehospital setting by paramedics using the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) score.

In his presentation, Manuel Requena, PhD, a neurologist and neurointerventionalist fellow at Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, explained that, if patients were within 6 hours of symptom onset with a RACE scale score greater than 4, paramedics called ahead to a stroke neurologist, who met the patient directly at the hospital.

If on clinical examination the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was greater than 10, patients could be enrolled into the study. Upon enrollment, they were randomly assigned either to be taken directly to the angiography suite or to receive standard care.
 

Bypassing the emergency department

Dr. Requena noted that, at his center, patients who receive standard care are transferred to the CT imaging suite, where they are evaluated with noncontrast CT and CT angiography. CT perfusion is also performed if the treating physician deems it necessary.

If a large-vessel occlusion is confirmed, patients are then transferred to the angiography suite for endovascular treatment. He added that in many centers, patients are evaluated in the ED before undergoing CT scanning.

Patients in the direct angiography group received a “flat-panel” noncontrast CT in the angiography suite to rule out intracranial hemorrhage or a large, established infarct. The large-vessel occlusion would be confirmed by arteriography before the endovascular procedure was performed.

After CT scanning, patients received thrombolysis as recommended in the guidelines.

The current interim analysis includes the 174 patients who have been enrolled so far in the study. The median RACE score for these patients was 7, and the median NIHSS score was 17. Large-vessel occlusion was confirmed in 84% of patients, and 8% had an intracerebral hemorrhage.

Results showed that of the 147 patients who received endovascular therapy, puncture time was shorter for those who were taken directly to angiography (median, 18 min vs. 42 min), as was time to reperfusion (median, 57 min vs. 84 min).

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale functional outcome scale at 90 days (odds of 1-point improvement or more). In the direct angiography group, the adjusted odds ratio for an improved functional outcome was 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-.1).

There were no significant differences in safety endpoints. There was a trend toward more procedural complications in those receiving endovascular therapy in the direct angiography group (8.1% vs. 2.7%; P = .6), but there was also a trend toward lower 90-day mortality in this group (20.2% vs. 32.9%; P = .07)

Dr. Requena reported no significant difference in safety outcomes among those with a hemorrhagic stroke.

“Our study is the first clinical trial that shows the superiority of direct transfer to an angiography suite,” said Dr. Requena. “Our findings were close to what we expected, and we were surprised that they occurred so early in the study. We trust that they will be confirmed in ongoing, multicenter, international trials.”

Stroke patients who were transferred directly to an angiography suite were also less likely to be dependent on assistance with daily activities than were those who received the current standard of care, Dr. Requena said. “More frequent and more rapid treatment can help improve outcomes for our stroke patients.”

A limitation of this study is that the hospital had extensive experience with immediate angiography, so findings may differ at hospitals or care centers with less angiography expertise or experience, Dr. Requena said.

He added that retrospective studies conducted in hospitals in the United States, Germany, and Switzerland show that this kind of protocol can be developed in any high-volume stroke center, although multicenter, international trials are needed.
 

The cost of speed

Commenting on the ANGIO-CAT study, Michael Hill, MD, a professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), said the 27-minute improvement in door-to-reperfusion time achieved in the study was meaningful and correlates with the degree of improved outcomes observed. “So, the improvement in speed of treatment resulting in better outcomes makes sense,” he added.

He cautioned that this strategy would only be feasible in certain centers with selected patients and that cost will be a fundamental issue.

“If you identify patients at angiography, you risk having some patients with no target large-vessel occlusion,” Dr. Hill added. “The real question is, how many of these patients without a large-vessel occlusion can the system tolerate before it becomes uneconomical and not fruitful or harmful, given that groin puncture is not totally harmless?”

The moderator of the ISC news conference on the study, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, who is also president of the American Stroke Association, said the study reflects the growing recognition of the importance of speed when treating stroke. “If we can shorten time to treatment using rapid evaluation and imaging protocols, this will help save brain,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Louisa McCullough, MD, PhD, chief of neurology at Memorial Hermann Hospital–Texas Medical Center, Houston, who is the ISC meeting chair, said she thought the study would be relevant to the United States. “Speed is really of the essence. Whenever we can reduce delays, that will make a big difference to patients.”

Referring to this study on improving hospital systems, as well as a second study that was presented at the meeting that showed benefits from delivery of prehospital thrombolysis via a mobile stroke unit, Dr. McCullough added that “we need to set up models so we can get the best of both these worlds. These studies are really leading the way on how we can change the stroke systems of care.”

The study was funded by Vall d’Hebron Research Institute. Dr. Requena disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke who were taken directly to the angiography suite, bypassing the emergency department, received endovascular treatment faster and had better 90-day functional outcomes in a new study.

Results of the ANGIO-CAT trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The study involved patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion, as assessed in the prehospital setting by paramedics using the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) score.

In his presentation, Manuel Requena, PhD, a neurologist and neurointerventionalist fellow at Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, explained that, if patients were within 6 hours of symptom onset with a RACE scale score greater than 4, paramedics called ahead to a stroke neurologist, who met the patient directly at the hospital.

If on clinical examination the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was greater than 10, patients could be enrolled into the study. Upon enrollment, they were randomly assigned either to be taken directly to the angiography suite or to receive standard care.
 

Bypassing the emergency department

Dr. Requena noted that, at his center, patients who receive standard care are transferred to the CT imaging suite, where they are evaluated with noncontrast CT and CT angiography. CT perfusion is also performed if the treating physician deems it necessary.

If a large-vessel occlusion is confirmed, patients are then transferred to the angiography suite for endovascular treatment. He added that in many centers, patients are evaluated in the ED before undergoing CT scanning.

Patients in the direct angiography group received a “flat-panel” noncontrast CT in the angiography suite to rule out intracranial hemorrhage or a large, established infarct. The large-vessel occlusion would be confirmed by arteriography before the endovascular procedure was performed.

After CT scanning, patients received thrombolysis as recommended in the guidelines.

The current interim analysis includes the 174 patients who have been enrolled so far in the study. The median RACE score for these patients was 7, and the median NIHSS score was 17. Large-vessel occlusion was confirmed in 84% of patients, and 8% had an intracerebral hemorrhage.

Results showed that of the 147 patients who received endovascular therapy, puncture time was shorter for those who were taken directly to angiography (median, 18 min vs. 42 min), as was time to reperfusion (median, 57 min vs. 84 min).

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale functional outcome scale at 90 days (odds of 1-point improvement or more). In the direct angiography group, the adjusted odds ratio for an improved functional outcome was 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-.1).

There were no significant differences in safety endpoints. There was a trend toward more procedural complications in those receiving endovascular therapy in the direct angiography group (8.1% vs. 2.7%; P = .6), but there was also a trend toward lower 90-day mortality in this group (20.2% vs. 32.9%; P = .07)

Dr. Requena reported no significant difference in safety outcomes among those with a hemorrhagic stroke.

“Our study is the first clinical trial that shows the superiority of direct transfer to an angiography suite,” said Dr. Requena. “Our findings were close to what we expected, and we were surprised that they occurred so early in the study. We trust that they will be confirmed in ongoing, multicenter, international trials.”

Stroke patients who were transferred directly to an angiography suite were also less likely to be dependent on assistance with daily activities than were those who received the current standard of care, Dr. Requena said. “More frequent and more rapid treatment can help improve outcomes for our stroke patients.”

A limitation of this study is that the hospital had extensive experience with immediate angiography, so findings may differ at hospitals or care centers with less angiography expertise or experience, Dr. Requena said.

He added that retrospective studies conducted in hospitals in the United States, Germany, and Switzerland show that this kind of protocol can be developed in any high-volume stroke center, although multicenter, international trials are needed.
 

The cost of speed

Commenting on the ANGIO-CAT study, Michael Hill, MD, a professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), said the 27-minute improvement in door-to-reperfusion time achieved in the study was meaningful and correlates with the degree of improved outcomes observed. “So, the improvement in speed of treatment resulting in better outcomes makes sense,” he added.

He cautioned that this strategy would only be feasible in certain centers with selected patients and that cost will be a fundamental issue.

“If you identify patients at angiography, you risk having some patients with no target large-vessel occlusion,” Dr. Hill added. “The real question is, how many of these patients without a large-vessel occlusion can the system tolerate before it becomes uneconomical and not fruitful or harmful, given that groin puncture is not totally harmless?”

The moderator of the ISC news conference on the study, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, who is also president of the American Stroke Association, said the study reflects the growing recognition of the importance of speed when treating stroke. “If we can shorten time to treatment using rapid evaluation and imaging protocols, this will help save brain,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Louisa McCullough, MD, PhD, chief of neurology at Memorial Hermann Hospital–Texas Medical Center, Houston, who is the ISC meeting chair, said she thought the study would be relevant to the United States. “Speed is really of the essence. Whenever we can reduce delays, that will make a big difference to patients.”

Referring to this study on improving hospital systems, as well as a second study that was presented at the meeting that showed benefits from delivery of prehospital thrombolysis via a mobile stroke unit, Dr. McCullough added that “we need to set up models so we can get the best of both these worlds. These studies are really leading the way on how we can change the stroke systems of care.”

The study was funded by Vall d’Hebron Research Institute. Dr. Requena disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke who were taken directly to the angiography suite, bypassing the emergency department, received endovascular treatment faster and had better 90-day functional outcomes in a new study.

Results of the ANGIO-CAT trial were presented at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The study involved patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion, as assessed in the prehospital setting by paramedics using the Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) score.

In his presentation, Manuel Requena, PhD, a neurologist and neurointerventionalist fellow at Vall d’Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, explained that, if patients were within 6 hours of symptom onset with a RACE scale score greater than 4, paramedics called ahead to a stroke neurologist, who met the patient directly at the hospital.

If on clinical examination the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was greater than 10, patients could be enrolled into the study. Upon enrollment, they were randomly assigned either to be taken directly to the angiography suite or to receive standard care.
 

Bypassing the emergency department

Dr. Requena noted that, at his center, patients who receive standard care are transferred to the CT imaging suite, where they are evaluated with noncontrast CT and CT angiography. CT perfusion is also performed if the treating physician deems it necessary.

If a large-vessel occlusion is confirmed, patients are then transferred to the angiography suite for endovascular treatment. He added that in many centers, patients are evaluated in the ED before undergoing CT scanning.

Patients in the direct angiography group received a “flat-panel” noncontrast CT in the angiography suite to rule out intracranial hemorrhage or a large, established infarct. The large-vessel occlusion would be confirmed by arteriography before the endovascular procedure was performed.

After CT scanning, patients received thrombolysis as recommended in the guidelines.

The current interim analysis includes the 174 patients who have been enrolled so far in the study. The median RACE score for these patients was 7, and the median NIHSS score was 17. Large-vessel occlusion was confirmed in 84% of patients, and 8% had an intracerebral hemorrhage.

Results showed that of the 147 patients who received endovascular therapy, puncture time was shorter for those who were taken directly to angiography (median, 18 min vs. 42 min), as was time to reperfusion (median, 57 min vs. 84 min).

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the Modified Rankin Scale functional outcome scale at 90 days (odds of 1-point improvement or more). In the direct angiography group, the adjusted odds ratio for an improved functional outcome was 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-.1).

There were no significant differences in safety endpoints. There was a trend toward more procedural complications in those receiving endovascular therapy in the direct angiography group (8.1% vs. 2.7%; P = .6), but there was also a trend toward lower 90-day mortality in this group (20.2% vs. 32.9%; P = .07)

Dr. Requena reported no significant difference in safety outcomes among those with a hemorrhagic stroke.

“Our study is the first clinical trial that shows the superiority of direct transfer to an angiography suite,” said Dr. Requena. “Our findings were close to what we expected, and we were surprised that they occurred so early in the study. We trust that they will be confirmed in ongoing, multicenter, international trials.”

Stroke patients who were transferred directly to an angiography suite were also less likely to be dependent on assistance with daily activities than were those who received the current standard of care, Dr. Requena said. “More frequent and more rapid treatment can help improve outcomes for our stroke patients.”

A limitation of this study is that the hospital had extensive experience with immediate angiography, so findings may differ at hospitals or care centers with less angiography expertise or experience, Dr. Requena said.

He added that retrospective studies conducted in hospitals in the United States, Germany, and Switzerland show that this kind of protocol can be developed in any high-volume stroke center, although multicenter, international trials are needed.
 

The cost of speed

Commenting on the ANGIO-CAT study, Michael Hill, MD, a professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), said the 27-minute improvement in door-to-reperfusion time achieved in the study was meaningful and correlates with the degree of improved outcomes observed. “So, the improvement in speed of treatment resulting in better outcomes makes sense,” he added.

He cautioned that this strategy would only be feasible in certain centers with selected patients and that cost will be a fundamental issue.

“If you identify patients at angiography, you risk having some patients with no target large-vessel occlusion,” Dr. Hill added. “The real question is, how many of these patients without a large-vessel occlusion can the system tolerate before it becomes uneconomical and not fruitful or harmful, given that groin puncture is not totally harmless?”

The moderator of the ISC news conference on the study, Mitchell Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York, who is also president of the American Stroke Association, said the study reflects the growing recognition of the importance of speed when treating stroke. “If we can shorten time to treatment using rapid evaluation and imaging protocols, this will help save brain,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Louisa McCullough, MD, PhD, chief of neurology at Memorial Hermann Hospital–Texas Medical Center, Houston, who is the ISC meeting chair, said she thought the study would be relevant to the United States. “Speed is really of the essence. Whenever we can reduce delays, that will make a big difference to patients.”

Referring to this study on improving hospital systems, as well as a second study that was presented at the meeting that showed benefits from delivery of prehospital thrombolysis via a mobile stroke unit, Dr. McCullough added that “we need to set up models so we can get the best of both these worlds. These studies are really leading the way on how we can change the stroke systems of care.”

The study was funded by Vall d’Hebron Research Institute. Dr. Requena disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock.com

Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.

“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
 

Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar

“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”

The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”

The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m², and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.

During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.

In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)

The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.

Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable

The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.

“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock.com

Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.

“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
 

Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar

“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”

The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”

The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m², and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.

During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.

In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)

The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.

Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable

The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.

“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Eating ultraprocessed foods poses a significant risk to cardiovascular and coronary heart health, according to prospective data from about 3,000 people in the Framingham Offspring Cohort, the second generation of participants in the Framingham Heart Study.

©Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock.com

Each regular, daily serving of ultraprocessed food was linked with significant elevations of 5%-9% in the relative rates of “hard” cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events, overall CVD events, and CVD death, after adjustments for numerous potential confounders including energy intake, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure, Filippa Juul, PhD, and associates wrote in a report published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Consumption of ultraprocessed foods makes up over half of the daily calories in the average American diet and are increasingly consumed worldwide. As poor diet is a major modifiable risk factor for heart disease, it represents a critical target in prevention efforts,” said Dr. Juul, a nutritional epidemiologist at New York University, in a statement released by the American College of Cardiology.

“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting cardiovascular benefits of limiting ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods are ubiquitous and include many foods that are marketed as healthy, such as protein bars, breakfast cereals, and most industrially produced breads,” she added. Other commonplace members of the ultraprocessed food group include carbonated soft drinks, packaged snacks, candies, sausages, margarines, and energy drinks. The concept of ultraprocessed foods as a distinct, wide-ranging, and dangerous food category first appeared in 2010, and then received an update from a United Nations panel in 2019 as what’s now called the NOVA classification system.
 

Ultraprocessed foods fly under the radar

“Although cardiovascular guidelines emphasize consuming minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and nuts, they give less attention to the importance of minimizing ultraprocessed food,” wrote Robert J. Ostfeld, MD, and Kathleen E. Allen, MS, in an editorial that accompanied the new report. This reduced attention may be because of a “paucity of studies examining the association cardiovascular outcomes and ultraprocessed foods.”

The new evidence demands new policies, educational efforts, and labeling changes, suggested Dr. Ostfeld, director of preventive cardiology at Montefiore Health System in New York, and Ms. Allen, a dietitian at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “The goal should be to make the unhealthy choice the hard choice and the healthy choice the easy choice.”

The new analysis used data collected from people enrolled the Framingham Offspring Cohort, with their clinical metrics and diet information collected during 1991-1995 serving as their baseline. After excluding participants with prevalent CVD at baseline and those with incomplete follow-up of CVD events, the researchers had a cohort of 3,003 adults with an average follow-up of 18 years. At baseline, the cohort averaged 54 years of age; 55% were women, their average body mass index was 27.3 kg/m², and about 6% had diabetes. They reported eating, on average, 7.5 servings of ultraprocessed food daily.

During follow-up, the cohort tallied 648 incident CVD events, including 251 hard CVD events (coronary death, MI, or stroke) and 163 hard CHD events (coronary death or MI), and 713 total deaths including 108 CVD deaths. Other CVD events recorded but not considered hard included heart failure, intermittent claudication, and transient ischemic attack.

In a multivariate-adjusted analysis, each average daily portion of ultraprocessed food was linked with an significant 7% relative increase in the incidence of a hard CVD event, compared with participants who ate fewer ultraprocessed food portions, and a 9% relative increase in the rate of hard CHD events, the study’s two prespecified primary outcomes. The researchers also found that each ultraprocessed serving significantly was associated with a 5% relative increased rate of total CVD events, and a 9% relative rise in CVD deaths. The analysis showed no significant association between total mortality and ultraprocessed food intake. (Average follow-up for the mortality analyses was 20 years.)

The authors also reported endpoint associations with intake of specific types of ultraprocessed foods, and found significantly increased associations specifically for portions of bread, ultraprocessed meat, salty snacks, and low-calorie soft drinks.

Convenient, omnipresent, and affordable

The authors acknowledged that the associations they found need examination in ethnically diverse populations, but nonetheless the findings “suggest the need for increased efforts to implement population-wide strategies” to lower consumption of ultraprocessed foods. “Given the convenience, omnipresence, and affordability of ultraprocessed foods, careful nutrition counseling is needed to design individualized, patient-centered, heart-healthy diets,” they concluded.

“Population-wide strategies such as taxation on sugar-sweetened beverages and other ultraprocessed foods and recommendations regarding processing levels in national dietary guidelines are needed to reduce the intake of ultraprocessed foods,” added Dr. Juul in her statement. “Of course, we must also implement policies that increase the availability, accessibility, and affordability of nutritious, minimally processed foods, especially in disadvantaged populations. At the clinical level, there is a need for increased commitment to individualized nutrition counseling for adopting sustainable heart-healthy diets.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Juul and coauthors, Dr. Ostfeld, and Ms. Allen had no disclosures.

[email protected]

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

More than one-third of adults aged 18-64 years in the United States delayed or went without medical care because of efforts by patients or providers to reduce the spread of COVID-19, according to a new report from the Urban Institute.

Among the adults who postponed or missed care, 32.6% said the gap worsened one or more health conditions or limited their ability to work or perform daily activities. The findings highlight “the detrimental ripple effects of delaying or forgoing care on overall health, functioning, and well-being,” researchers write.

The survey, conducted among 4,007 U.S. adults aged 18-64 in September 2020, found that adults with one or more chronic conditions were more likely than adults without chronic conditions to have delayed or missed care (40.7% vs. 26.4%). Adults with a mental health condition were particularly likely to have delayed or gone without care, write Dulce Gonzalez, MPP, a research associate in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute, and colleagues.

Doctors are already seeing the consequences of the missed visits, says Jacqueline W. Fincher, MD, president of the American College of Physicians.

Two of her patients with chronic conditions missed appointments last year. By the time they resumed care in 2021, their previsit lab tests showed significant kidney deterioration.

“Lo and behold, their kidneys were in failure. … One was in the hospital for 3 days and the other one was in for 5 days,” said Dr. Fincher, who practices general internal medicine in Georgia.

Dr. Fincher’s office has been proactive about calling patients with chronic diseases who missed follow-up visits or laboratory testing or who may have run out of medication, she said.

In her experience, delays mainly have been because of patients postponing visits. “We have stayed open the whole time now,” Dr. Fincher said. Her office offers telemedicine visits and in-person visits with safety precautions.

Still, some patients have decided to postpone care during the pandemic instead of asking their primary care doctor what they should do.

“We do know that chronic problems left without appropriate follow-up can create worse problems for them in terms of stroke, heart attack, and end organ damage,” Dr. Fincher said.
 

Lost lives

Future studies may help researchers understand the effects of delayed and missed care during the pandemic, said Russell S. Phillips, MD, director of the Center for Primary Care at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Although it is still early, and more data on patient outcomes will need to be collected, I anticipate that the ... delays in diagnosis, in cancer screening, and in management of chronic illness will result in lost lives and will emphasize the important role that primary care plays in saving lives,” Dr. Phillips said.

During the first several months of the pandemic, there were fewer diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and depression, Dr. Phillips said.

“In addition, and most importantly, the mortality rate for non-COVID conditions increased, suggesting that patients were not seeking care for symptoms of stroke or heart attack, which can be fatal if untreated,” he said. “We have also seen substantial decreases in cancer screening tests such as colonoscopy, and modeling studies suggest this will cost more lives based on delayed diagnoses of cancer.”

Vaccinating patients against COVID-19 may help primary care practices and patients get back on track, Dr. Phillips suggested.

In the meantime, some patients remain reluctant to come in. “Volumes are still lower than prepandemic, so it is challenging to overcome what is likely to be pent-up demand,” he told this news organization in an email. “Additionally, the continued burden of evaluating, testing, and monitoring patients with COVID or COVID-like symptoms makes it difficult to focus on chronic illness.”
 

Care most often skipped

The Urban Institute survey asked respondents about delays in prescription drugs, general doctor and specialist visits, going to a hospital, preventive health screenings or medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, dental care, mental health care or counseling, treatment or counseling for alcohol or drug use, and other types of medical care.

Dental care was the most common type of care that adults delayed or did not receive because of the pandemic (25.3%), followed by general doctor or specialist visits (20.6%) and preventive health screenings or medical tests (15.5%).

Black adults were more likely than White or Hispanic/Latinx adults to have delayed or forgone care (39.7% vs. 34.3% and 35.5%), the researchers found. Compared with adults with higher incomes, adults with lower incomes were more likely to have missed multiple types of care (26.6% vs. 20.3%).

The report by the Urban Institute researchers was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Phillips is an adviser to two telemedicine companies, Bicycle Health and Grow Health. Dr. Fincher has disclosed no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Contrary to previous findings, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are not associated with an increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), results of a large observational study show. However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the finding.

“These findings are important, especially since depression is common after stroke and SSRIs are some of the first drugs considered for people,” Mithilesh Siddu, MD, of the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital, also in Miami, said in a statement.

However, Dr. Siddu said “more research is needed to confirm our findings and to also examine if SSRIs prescribed after a stroke may be linked to risk of a second stroke.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Widely prescribed

SSRIs, the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, have previously been linked to an increased risk of ICH, possibly as a result of impaired platelet function.

To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data from the Florida Stroke Registry (FSR). They identified 127,915 patients who suffered ICH from January 2010 to December 2019 and for whom information on antidepressant use was available.

They analyzed the proportion of cases presenting with ICH among antidepressant users and the rate of SSRI prescription among stroke patients discharged on antidepressant therapy.

The researchers found that 11% of those who had been prescribed antidepressants had an ICH, compared with 14% of those who had not.

Antidepressant users were more likely to be female; non-Hispanic White; have hypertension; have diabetes; and use oral anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and statins prior to hospital presentation for ICH.

In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, prior history of hypertension, diabetes and prior oral anticoagulant, antiplatelet and statin use, antidepressant users were just as likely to present with spontaneous ICH as nonantidepressant users (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.01).

A total of 3.4% of all ICH patients and 9% of those in whom specific antidepressant information was available were discharged home on an antidepressant, most commonly an SSRI (74%).

The authors noted a key limitation of the study: Some details regarding the length, dosage, and type of antidepressants were not available.
 

Interpret with caution

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, urged caution in making any firm conclusions based on this study.

“We have two questions here: One, is SSRI use a risk factor for first-time intracerebral hemorrhage, and two, is SSRI use after an ICH a risk factor for additional hemorrhages,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the study.

“This study incompletely addresses the first because it is known that SSRIs have a variety of potencies. For instance, paroxetine is a strong inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, whereas bupropion is weak. Hypothetically, the former has a greater risk of ICH. Because this study did not stratify by type of antidepressant, it is not possible to tease these out,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“The second question is completely unaddressed by this study and is the real concern in clinical practice, because the chance of rebleed is much higher than the risk of first-time ICH in the general population,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Siddu and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to previous findings, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are not associated with an increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), results of a large observational study show. However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the finding.

“These findings are important, especially since depression is common after stroke and SSRIs are some of the first drugs considered for people,” Mithilesh Siddu, MD, of the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital, also in Miami, said in a statement.

However, Dr. Siddu said “more research is needed to confirm our findings and to also examine if SSRIs prescribed after a stroke may be linked to risk of a second stroke.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Widely prescribed

SSRIs, the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, have previously been linked to an increased risk of ICH, possibly as a result of impaired platelet function.

To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data from the Florida Stroke Registry (FSR). They identified 127,915 patients who suffered ICH from January 2010 to December 2019 and for whom information on antidepressant use was available.

They analyzed the proportion of cases presenting with ICH among antidepressant users and the rate of SSRI prescription among stroke patients discharged on antidepressant therapy.

The researchers found that 11% of those who had been prescribed antidepressants had an ICH, compared with 14% of those who had not.

Antidepressant users were more likely to be female; non-Hispanic White; have hypertension; have diabetes; and use oral anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and statins prior to hospital presentation for ICH.

In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, prior history of hypertension, diabetes and prior oral anticoagulant, antiplatelet and statin use, antidepressant users were just as likely to present with spontaneous ICH as nonantidepressant users (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.01).

A total of 3.4% of all ICH patients and 9% of those in whom specific antidepressant information was available were discharged home on an antidepressant, most commonly an SSRI (74%).

The authors noted a key limitation of the study: Some details regarding the length, dosage, and type of antidepressants were not available.
 

Interpret with caution

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, urged caution in making any firm conclusions based on this study.

“We have two questions here: One, is SSRI use a risk factor for first-time intracerebral hemorrhage, and two, is SSRI use after an ICH a risk factor for additional hemorrhages,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the study.

“This study incompletely addresses the first because it is known that SSRIs have a variety of potencies. For instance, paroxetine is a strong inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, whereas bupropion is weak. Hypothetically, the former has a greater risk of ICH. Because this study did not stratify by type of antidepressant, it is not possible to tease these out,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“The second question is completely unaddressed by this study and is the real concern in clinical practice, because the chance of rebleed is much higher than the risk of first-time ICH in the general population,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Siddu and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contrary to previous findings, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are not associated with an increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), results of a large observational study show. However, at least one expert urged caution in interpreting the finding.

“These findings are important, especially since depression is common after stroke and SSRIs are some of the first drugs considered for people,” Mithilesh Siddu, MD, of the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Hospital, also in Miami, said in a statement.

However, Dr. Siddu said “more research is needed to confirm our findings and to also examine if SSRIs prescribed after a stroke may be linked to risk of a second stroke.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

Widely prescribed

SSRIs, the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, have previously been linked to an increased risk of ICH, possibly as a result of impaired platelet function.

To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data from the Florida Stroke Registry (FSR). They identified 127,915 patients who suffered ICH from January 2010 to December 2019 and for whom information on antidepressant use was available.

They analyzed the proportion of cases presenting with ICH among antidepressant users and the rate of SSRI prescription among stroke patients discharged on antidepressant therapy.

The researchers found that 11% of those who had been prescribed antidepressants had an ICH, compared with 14% of those who had not.

Antidepressant users were more likely to be female; non-Hispanic White; have hypertension; have diabetes; and use oral anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and statins prior to hospital presentation for ICH.

In multivariable analyses adjusting for age, race, prior history of hypertension, diabetes and prior oral anticoagulant, antiplatelet and statin use, antidepressant users were just as likely to present with spontaneous ICH as nonantidepressant users (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.01).

A total of 3.4% of all ICH patients and 9% of those in whom specific antidepressant information was available were discharged home on an antidepressant, most commonly an SSRI (74%).

The authors noted a key limitation of the study: Some details regarding the length, dosage, and type of antidepressants were not available.
 

Interpret with caution

In a comment, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., and executive director of the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, urged caution in making any firm conclusions based on this study.

“We have two questions here: One, is SSRI use a risk factor for first-time intracerebral hemorrhage, and two, is SSRI use after an ICH a risk factor for additional hemorrhages,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the study.

“This study incompletely addresses the first because it is known that SSRIs have a variety of potencies. For instance, paroxetine is a strong inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, whereas bupropion is weak. Hypothetically, the former has a greater risk of ICH. Because this study did not stratify by type of antidepressant, it is not possible to tease these out,” Dr. Lakhan said.

“The second question is completely unaddressed by this study and is the real concern in clinical practice, because the chance of rebleed is much higher than the risk of first-time ICH in the general population,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Siddu and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke, dementias, and migraine cause the most disability among neurological disorders in the United States, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study. 

The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
 

Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases

Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.

The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.

The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.

Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
 

Regional variations

The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”

Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.

Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”

The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
 

Time to adjust the stroke belt?

Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia. 

“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”

Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Stroke, dementias, and migraine cause the most disability among neurological disorders in the United States, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study. 

The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
 

Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases

Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.

The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.

The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.

Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
 

Regional variations

The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”

Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.

Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”

The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
 

Time to adjust the stroke belt?

Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia. 

“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”

Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Stroke, dementias, and migraine cause the most disability among neurological disorders in the United States, according to new findings derived from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease study. 

The authors of the analysis, led by Valery Feigin, MD, PhD, of New Zealand’s National Institute for Stroke and Applied Neurosciences, and published in the February 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology, looked at prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for 14 neurological disorders across 50 states between 1990 and 2017. The diseases included in the analysis were stroke, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, headaches, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, brain and other nervous system cancers, meningitis, encephalitis, and tetanus.
 

Tracking the burden of neurologic diseases

Dr. Feigin and colleagues estimated that a full 60% of the U.S. population lives with one or more of these disorders, a figure much greater than previous estimates for neurological disease burden nationwide. Tension-type headache and migraine were the most prevalent in the analysis by Dr. Feigin and colleagues. During the study period, they found, prevalence, incidence, and disability burden of nearly all the included disorders increased, with the exception of brain and spinal cord injuries, meningitis, and encephalitis.

The researchers attributed most of the rise in noncommunicable neurological diseases to population aging. An age-standardized analysis found trends for stroke and Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias to be declining or flat. Age-standardized stroke incidence dropped by 16% from 1990 to 2017, while stroke mortality declined by nearly a third, and stroke disability by a quarter. Age-standardized incidence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias dropped by 12%, and their prevalence by 13%, during the study period, though dementia mortality and disability were seen increasing.

The authors surmised that the age-standardized declines in stroke and dementias could reflect that “primary prevention of these disorders are beginning to show an influence.” With dementia, which is linked to cognitive reserve and education, “improving educational levels of cohort reaching the age groups at greatest risk of disease may also be contributing to a modest decline over time,” Dr. Feigin and his colleagues wrote.

Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, meanwhile, were both seen rising in incidence, prevalence, and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) even with age-standardized figures. The United States saw comparatively more disability in 2017 from dementias, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, and headache disorders, which together comprised 6.7% of DALYs, compared with 4.4% globally; these also accounted for a higher share of mortality in the U.S. than worldwide. The authors attributed at least some of the difference to better case ascertainment in the U.S.
 

Regional variations

The researchers also reported variations in disease burden by state and region. While previous studies have identified a “stroke belt” concentrated in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, the new findings point to stroke disability highest in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, and mortality highest in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The researchers noted increases in dementia mortality in these states, “likely attributable to the reciprocal association between stroke and dementia.”

Northern states saw higher burdens of multiple sclerosis compared with the rest of the country, while eastern states had higher rates of Parkinson’s disease.

Such regional and state-by state variations, Dr. Feigin and colleagues wrote in their analysis, “may be associated with differences in the case ascertainment, as well as access to health care; racial/ethnic, genetic, and socioeconomic diversity; quality and comprehensiveness of preventive strategies; and risk factor distribution.”

The researchers noted as a limitation of their study that the 14 diseases captured were not an exhaustive list of neurological conditions; chronic lower back pain, a condition included in a previous major study of the burden of neurological disease in the United States, was omitted, as were restless legs syndrome and peripheral neuropathy. The researchers cited changes to coding practice in the U.S. and accuracy of medical claims data as potential limitations of their analysis. The Global Burden of Disease study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and several of Dr. Feigin’s coauthors reported financial relationships with industry.
 

Time to adjust the stroke belt?

Amelia Boehme, PhD, a stroke epidemiologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, said in an interview that the current study added to recent findings showing surprising local variability in stroke prevalence, incidence, and mortality. “What we had always conceptually thought of as the ‘stroke belt’ isn’t necessarily the case,” Dr. Boehme said, but is rather subject to local, county-by-county variations. “Looking at the data here in conjunction with what previous authors have found, it raises some questions as to whether or not state-level data is giving a completely accurate picture, and whether we need to start looking at the county level and adjust for populations and age.” Importantly, Dr. Boehme said, data collected in the Global Burden of Disease study tends to be exceptionally rigorous and systematic, adding weight to Dr. Feigin and colleagues’ suggestions that prevention efforts may be making a dent in stroke and dementia. 

“More data is always needed before we start to say we’re seeing things change,” Dr. Boehme noted. “But any glimmer of optimism is welcome, especially with regard to interventions that have been put in place, to allow us to build on those interventions.”

Dr. Boehme disclosed no financial conflicts of interest.

Restoring movement following a stroke can be challenging, but recent proof-of-concept research may offer an effective way to do just that. Researchers behind the ongoing Cortimo trial successfully performed a procedure on a patient 2 years removed from a stroke, in which microelectrode arrays were implanted into his brain to decode signals driving motor function. These signals then allowed him to operate a powered brace worn on his paralyzed arm.

This news organization spoke with the trial’s principal investigator, Mijail D. Serruya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, about the trial’s initial findings, what this technology may ultimately look like, and the implications for stroke patients in knowing that restorative interventions may be on the horizon.
 

How did you first get involved with implanting electrodes to help stroke patients with recovery?

I was involved in the first human application of a microelectrode array in a young man who had quadriplegia because of a spinal cord injury. We showed that we could record signal directly from his motor cortex and use it to move a cursor on the screen, and open and close a prosthetic hand and arm.

I was naive and thought that this would soon be a widely available clinical medical device. Now it’s nearly 15 years later, and while it certainly has been safely used in multiple labs to record signals from people with spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or locked-in syndrome from a brain stem stroke, it still requires a team of technicians and a percutaneous connector. It really has not gotten out of the university.

A few years ago I spoke with Robert Rosenwasser, MD, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Thomas Jefferson, who runs a very busy stroke center and performed the surgery in this trial. We put our heads together and said: “Maybe the time is now to see whether we can move this technology to this much more prevalent condition of a hemispheric stroke.” And that’s what we did.
 

How did the idea of using computer brain electrode interfaces begin?

Around 20 years ago, if you had someone who had severe paralysis and you wanted to restore movement, the question was, where can you get a good control signal from? Obviously, if someone can talk, they can use a voice-actuated system with speech recognition and maybe you can track their eye gaze. But if they’re trying to move their limbs, you want a motor control signal.

In someone who has end-stage ALS or a brain stem stroke, you can’t even record residual muscle activity; you have almost nothing to work with. The only thing left is to try to record directly from the brain itself.

It’s important to clarify that brain-computer interfaces are not necessarily stimulating the brain to inject the signal. They’re just recording the endogenous activity that the brain makes. In comparison, a deep brain stimulator is usually not recording anything; it’s just delivering energy to the brain and hoping for the best.

But what we’re doing is asking, if the person is trying to move the paralyzed limb but can’t, can we get to the source of the signal and then do something with it?
 

What’s the process for measuring that in, for example, someone who has a localized lesion in the motor cortex?

The first step is a scan. People have been doing functional MRI on patients who have had a stroke as long as we’ve had fMRI. We know that people can actually activate on MRI areas of their brain around the stroke, but obviously not in the stroke because it’s been lesioned. However, we do know that the circuit adjacent to it and other regions do appear able to be modulated.

So by having a person either imagine trying to do what they want to do or doing what they can do, if they have some tiny residual movement, you can then identify a kind of hot spot on the fMRI where the brain gobbles up all the oxygen because it’s so active. Then that gives you an anatomical target for the surgeon to place the electrode arrays.
 

The Cortimo trial’s enticing findings

What are the most striking results that you’ve seen so far with the device?

The first thing is that we were able to get such recordings at all. We knew from fMRIs that there were fluctuations in oxygen changing when the person was trying to do something they couldn’t do. But nobody knew that you would see this whole population of individual neurons chattering away when you place these electrode arrays in the motor cortex right next to the stroke, and make sense of what we’re recording.

Obviously, that’s very encouraging and gives us hope that many months or years after a stroke, people’s brains are able to maintain this representation of all these different movements and plans. It’s almost like it’s trapped on the other side of the stroke and some of the signals can’t get out.

The other discovery we’re pleased with is that we can actually decode signals in real time and the person can use it to do something, such as trigger the brain to open and close the hand. That’s very different from all the prior research with brain array interfaces.

Furthermore, the gentleman who participated actually had strokes in other parts of his brain affecting his vision; he had homonymous hemianopia. That raised the question of what happens if you affect parts of the brain that have to do with attention and visual processing. Could a system like this work? And again, the answer appears to be yes.
 

What are the next steps for this technology before it can potentially become available in the clinic?

For this to work, the system clearly has to be fully implantable. What we used was percutaneous. The risk-benefit may be acceptable for someone who has quadriplegia because of, for example, spinal cord injury or end-stage ALS who may already have a tracheostomy and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. But for someone who is hemiparetic and ambulatory, that may not be acceptable. And a fully implantable system would also have much better patient compliance.

Also, when you’re recording from lots and lots of individual brain cells at many, many samples a second on many, many channels, it’s certainly an engineering challenge. It’s not just a single channel that you occasionally query; it’s hundreds of thousands of channels of this complicated data stream.

But these are solvable challenges. People have been making a lot of progress. It’s really a matter of funding and the engineering expertise, rather than some sort of fundamental scientific breakthrough.

With that said, I think it could be within the next 5-10 years that we could actually have a product that expands the toolbox of what can be done for patients who’ve had a stroke, if they’re motivated and there’s no real contraindication.
 

Creating a novel device

On that point, are you partnering with engineering and technology companies?

The hope is that we and other groups working on this can do for the interface sort of what Celera Genomics did for the Human Genome Project. By having enough interest and investment, you may be able to propel the field forward to widespread use rather than just a purely academic, lab-science type of project.

We are in discussion with different companies to see how we can move ahead with this, and we would be pleased to work with whomever is interested. It may be that different companies have different pieces of the puzzle – a better sensor or a better wireless transmitter.

The plan is to move as quickly as we can to a fully implantable system. And then the benchmark for any kind of clinical advancement is to do a prospective trial. With devices, if you can get a big enough effect size, then you sometimes don’t need quite as many patients to prove it. If paralysis is striking enough and you can reverse that, then you can convince the Food and Drug Administration of its safety and efficacy, and the various insurance companies, that it’s actually reasonable and necessary.
 

How long will an implantable device last?

That’s a key question and concern. If you have someone like our participant, who’s in his early 40s, will it keep working 10, 20, 30, 40 years? For the rest of his life? Deep brain stimulators and cochlear implants do function for those long durations, but their designs are quite different. There’s a macroelectrode that’s just delivering current, which is very different from listening in on this microscopic scale. There are different technical considerations.

One possible solution is to make the device out of living tissue, which is something I just wrote about with my colleague D. Kacy Cullen. Living electrodes and amplifiers may seem a bit like science fiction, but on the other hand, we have over a century of plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons doing all kinds of complicated modifications of the body, moving nerves and vessels around. It makes you realize that, in a sense, they’ve already done living electrodes by doing a nerve transfer. So the question becomes whether we can refine that living electrode technology, which could then open up more possibilities.
 

Are there any final messages you’d like to share with clinician audience of this news organization?

Regardless of our specialty, we’re always telling our patients about the benefits of things like eating healthy, exercise, and sleep. Now we can point to the fact that, 2 years after stroke, all of these brain areas are still active, and devices that can potentially reverse and unparalyze your limbs may be available in the coming 5- or 10-plus years. That gives clinicians more justification to tell their patients to really stay on top of those things so that they can be in as optimal brain-mind health as possible to someday benefit from them.

Patients and their families need to be part of the conversation of where this is all going. That’s one thing that’s totally different for brain devices versus other devices, where a person’s psychological state doesn’t necessarily matter. But with a brain device, your mental state, psychosocial situation, exercise, sleep – the way you think about and approach it – actually changes to the structure of the brain pretty dramatically.

I don’t want to cause unreasonable hope that we’re going to snap our fingers and it’s going to be cured. But I do think it’s fair to raise a possibility as a way to say that keeping oneself really healthy is justified.

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

Restoring movement following a stroke can be challenging, but recent proof-of-concept research may offer an effective way to do just that. Researchers behind the ongoing Cortimo trial successfully performed a procedure on a patient 2 years removed from a stroke, in which microelectrode arrays were implanted into his brain to decode signals driving motor function. These signals then allowed him to operate a powered brace worn on his paralyzed arm.

This news organization spoke with the trial’s principal investigator, Mijail D. Serruya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, about the trial’s initial findings, what this technology may ultimately look like, and the implications for stroke patients in knowing that restorative interventions may be on the horizon.
 

How did you first get involved with implanting electrodes to help stroke patients with recovery?

I was involved in the first human application of a microelectrode array in a young man who had quadriplegia because of a spinal cord injury. We showed that we could record signal directly from his motor cortex and use it to move a cursor on the screen, and open and close a prosthetic hand and arm.

I was naive and thought that this would soon be a widely available clinical medical device. Now it’s nearly 15 years later, and while it certainly has been safely used in multiple labs to record signals from people with spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or locked-in syndrome from a brain stem stroke, it still requires a team of technicians and a percutaneous connector. It really has not gotten out of the university.

A few years ago I spoke with Robert Rosenwasser, MD, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Thomas Jefferson, who runs a very busy stroke center and performed the surgery in this trial. We put our heads together and said: “Maybe the time is now to see whether we can move this technology to this much more prevalent condition of a hemispheric stroke.” And that’s what we did.
 

How did the idea of using computer brain electrode interfaces begin?

Around 20 years ago, if you had someone who had severe paralysis and you wanted to restore movement, the question was, where can you get a good control signal from? Obviously, if someone can talk, they can use a voice-actuated system with speech recognition and maybe you can track their eye gaze. But if they’re trying to move their limbs, you want a motor control signal.

In someone who has end-stage ALS or a brain stem stroke, you can’t even record residual muscle activity; you have almost nothing to work with. The only thing left is to try to record directly from the brain itself.

It’s important to clarify that brain-computer interfaces are not necessarily stimulating the brain to inject the signal. They’re just recording the endogenous activity that the brain makes. In comparison, a deep brain stimulator is usually not recording anything; it’s just delivering energy to the brain and hoping for the best.

But what we’re doing is asking, if the person is trying to move the paralyzed limb but can’t, can we get to the source of the signal and then do something with it?
 

What’s the process for measuring that in, for example, someone who has a localized lesion in the motor cortex?

The first step is a scan. People have been doing functional MRI on patients who have had a stroke as long as we’ve had fMRI. We know that people can actually activate on MRI areas of their brain around the stroke, but obviously not in the stroke because it’s been lesioned. However, we do know that the circuit adjacent to it and other regions do appear able to be modulated.

So by having a person either imagine trying to do what they want to do or doing what they can do, if they have some tiny residual movement, you can then identify a kind of hot spot on the fMRI where the brain gobbles up all the oxygen because it’s so active. Then that gives you an anatomical target for the surgeon to place the electrode arrays.
 

The Cortimo trial’s enticing findings

What are the most striking results that you’ve seen so far with the device?

The first thing is that we were able to get such recordings at all. We knew from fMRIs that there were fluctuations in oxygen changing when the person was trying to do something they couldn’t do. But nobody knew that you would see this whole population of individual neurons chattering away when you place these electrode arrays in the motor cortex right next to the stroke, and make sense of what we’re recording.

Obviously, that’s very encouraging and gives us hope that many months or years after a stroke, people’s brains are able to maintain this representation of all these different movements and plans. It’s almost like it’s trapped on the other side of the stroke and some of the signals can’t get out.

The other discovery we’re pleased with is that we can actually decode signals in real time and the person can use it to do something, such as trigger the brain to open and close the hand. That’s very different from all the prior research with brain array interfaces.

Furthermore, the gentleman who participated actually had strokes in other parts of his brain affecting his vision; he had homonymous hemianopia. That raised the question of what happens if you affect parts of the brain that have to do with attention and visual processing. Could a system like this work? And again, the answer appears to be yes.
 

What are the next steps for this technology before it can potentially become available in the clinic?

For this to work, the system clearly has to be fully implantable. What we used was percutaneous. The risk-benefit may be acceptable for someone who has quadriplegia because of, for example, spinal cord injury or end-stage ALS who may already have a tracheostomy and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. But for someone who is hemiparetic and ambulatory, that may not be acceptable. And a fully implantable system would also have much better patient compliance.

Also, when you’re recording from lots and lots of individual brain cells at many, many samples a second on many, many channels, it’s certainly an engineering challenge. It’s not just a single channel that you occasionally query; it’s hundreds of thousands of channels of this complicated data stream.

But these are solvable challenges. People have been making a lot of progress. It’s really a matter of funding and the engineering expertise, rather than some sort of fundamental scientific breakthrough.

With that said, I think it could be within the next 5-10 years that we could actually have a product that expands the toolbox of what can be done for patients who’ve had a stroke, if they’re motivated and there’s no real contraindication.
 

Creating a novel device

On that point, are you partnering with engineering and technology companies?

The hope is that we and other groups working on this can do for the interface sort of what Celera Genomics did for the Human Genome Project. By having enough interest and investment, you may be able to propel the field forward to widespread use rather than just a purely academic, lab-science type of project.

We are in discussion with different companies to see how we can move ahead with this, and we would be pleased to work with whomever is interested. It may be that different companies have different pieces of the puzzle – a better sensor or a better wireless transmitter.

The plan is to move as quickly as we can to a fully implantable system. And then the benchmark for any kind of clinical advancement is to do a prospective trial. With devices, if you can get a big enough effect size, then you sometimes don’t need quite as many patients to prove it. If paralysis is striking enough and you can reverse that, then you can convince the Food and Drug Administration of its safety and efficacy, and the various insurance companies, that it’s actually reasonable and necessary.
 

How long will an implantable device last?

That’s a key question and concern. If you have someone like our participant, who’s in his early 40s, will it keep working 10, 20, 30, 40 years? For the rest of his life? Deep brain stimulators and cochlear implants do function for those long durations, but their designs are quite different. There’s a macroelectrode that’s just delivering current, which is very different from listening in on this microscopic scale. There are different technical considerations.

One possible solution is to make the device out of living tissue, which is something I just wrote about with my colleague D. Kacy Cullen. Living electrodes and amplifiers may seem a bit like science fiction, but on the other hand, we have over a century of plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons doing all kinds of complicated modifications of the body, moving nerves and vessels around. It makes you realize that, in a sense, they’ve already done living electrodes by doing a nerve transfer. So the question becomes whether we can refine that living electrode technology, which could then open up more possibilities.
 

Are there any final messages you’d like to share with clinician audience of this news organization?

Regardless of our specialty, we’re always telling our patients about the benefits of things like eating healthy, exercise, and sleep. Now we can point to the fact that, 2 years after stroke, all of these brain areas are still active, and devices that can potentially reverse and unparalyze your limbs may be available in the coming 5- or 10-plus years. That gives clinicians more justification to tell their patients to really stay on top of those things so that they can be in as optimal brain-mind health as possible to someday benefit from them.

Patients and their families need to be part of the conversation of where this is all going. That’s one thing that’s totally different for brain devices versus other devices, where a person’s psychological state doesn’t necessarily matter. But with a brain device, your mental state, psychosocial situation, exercise, sleep – the way you think about and approach it – actually changes to the structure of the brain pretty dramatically.

I don’t want to cause unreasonable hope that we’re going to snap our fingers and it’s going to be cured. But I do think it’s fair to raise a possibility as a way to say that keeping oneself really healthy is justified.

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

Restoring movement following a stroke can be challenging, but recent proof-of-concept research may offer an effective way to do just that. Researchers behind the ongoing Cortimo trial successfully performed a procedure on a patient 2 years removed from a stroke, in which microelectrode arrays were implanted into his brain to decode signals driving motor function. These signals then allowed him to operate a powered brace worn on his paralyzed arm.

This news organization spoke with the trial’s principal investigator, Mijail D. Serruya, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurology at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, about the trial’s initial findings, what this technology may ultimately look like, and the implications for stroke patients in knowing that restorative interventions may be on the horizon.
 

How did you first get involved with implanting electrodes to help stroke patients with recovery?

I was involved in the first human application of a microelectrode array in a young man who had quadriplegia because of a spinal cord injury. We showed that we could record signal directly from his motor cortex and use it to move a cursor on the screen, and open and close a prosthetic hand and arm.

I was naive and thought that this would soon be a widely available clinical medical device. Now it’s nearly 15 years later, and while it certainly has been safely used in multiple labs to record signals from people with spinal cord injury, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or locked-in syndrome from a brain stem stroke, it still requires a team of technicians and a percutaneous connector. It really has not gotten out of the university.

A few years ago I spoke with Robert Rosenwasser, MD, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Thomas Jefferson, who runs a very busy stroke center and performed the surgery in this trial. We put our heads together and said: “Maybe the time is now to see whether we can move this technology to this much more prevalent condition of a hemispheric stroke.” And that’s what we did.
 

How did the idea of using computer brain electrode interfaces begin?

Around 20 years ago, if you had someone who had severe paralysis and you wanted to restore movement, the question was, where can you get a good control signal from? Obviously, if someone can talk, they can use a voice-actuated system with speech recognition and maybe you can track their eye gaze. But if they’re trying to move their limbs, you want a motor control signal.

In someone who has end-stage ALS or a brain stem stroke, you can’t even record residual muscle activity; you have almost nothing to work with. The only thing left is to try to record directly from the brain itself.

It’s important to clarify that brain-computer interfaces are not necessarily stimulating the brain to inject the signal. They’re just recording the endogenous activity that the brain makes. In comparison, a deep brain stimulator is usually not recording anything; it’s just delivering energy to the brain and hoping for the best.

But what we’re doing is asking, if the person is trying to move the paralyzed limb but can’t, can we get to the source of the signal and then do something with it?
 

What’s the process for measuring that in, for example, someone who has a localized lesion in the motor cortex?

The first step is a scan. People have been doing functional MRI on patients who have had a stroke as long as we’ve had fMRI. We know that people can actually activate on MRI areas of their brain around the stroke, but obviously not in the stroke because it’s been lesioned. However, we do know that the circuit adjacent to it and other regions do appear able to be modulated.

So by having a person either imagine trying to do what they want to do or doing what they can do, if they have some tiny residual movement, you can then identify a kind of hot spot on the fMRI where the brain gobbles up all the oxygen because it’s so active. Then that gives you an anatomical target for the surgeon to place the electrode arrays.
 

The Cortimo trial’s enticing findings

What are the most striking results that you’ve seen so far with the device?

The first thing is that we were able to get such recordings at all. We knew from fMRIs that there were fluctuations in oxygen changing when the person was trying to do something they couldn’t do. But nobody knew that you would see this whole population of individual neurons chattering away when you place these electrode arrays in the motor cortex right next to the stroke, and make sense of what we’re recording.

Obviously, that’s very encouraging and gives us hope that many months or years after a stroke, people’s brains are able to maintain this representation of all these different movements and plans. It’s almost like it’s trapped on the other side of the stroke and some of the signals can’t get out.

The other discovery we’re pleased with is that we can actually decode signals in real time and the person can use it to do something, such as trigger the brain to open and close the hand. That’s very different from all the prior research with brain array interfaces.

Furthermore, the gentleman who participated actually had strokes in other parts of his brain affecting his vision; he had homonymous hemianopia. That raised the question of what happens if you affect parts of the brain that have to do with attention and visual processing. Could a system like this work? And again, the answer appears to be yes.
 

What are the next steps for this technology before it can potentially become available in the clinic?

For this to work, the system clearly has to be fully implantable. What we used was percutaneous. The risk-benefit may be acceptable for someone who has quadriplegia because of, for example, spinal cord injury or end-stage ALS who may already have a tracheostomy and a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. But for someone who is hemiparetic and ambulatory, that may not be acceptable. And a fully implantable system would also have much better patient compliance.

Also, when you’re recording from lots and lots of individual brain cells at many, many samples a second on many, many channels, it’s certainly an engineering challenge. It’s not just a single channel that you occasionally query; it’s hundreds of thousands of channels of this complicated data stream.

But these are solvable challenges. People have been making a lot of progress. It’s really a matter of funding and the engineering expertise, rather than some sort of fundamental scientific breakthrough.

With that said, I think it could be within the next 5-10 years that we could actually have a product that expands the toolbox of what can be done for patients who’ve had a stroke, if they’re motivated and there’s no real contraindication.
 

Creating a novel device

On that point, are you partnering with engineering and technology companies?

The hope is that we and other groups working on this can do for the interface sort of what Celera Genomics did for the Human Genome Project. By having enough interest and investment, you may be able to propel the field forward to widespread use rather than just a purely academic, lab-science type of project.

We are in discussion with different companies to see how we can move ahead with this, and we would be pleased to work with whomever is interested. It may be that different companies have different pieces of the puzzle – a better sensor or a better wireless transmitter.

The plan is to move as quickly as we can to a fully implantable system. And then the benchmark for any kind of clinical advancement is to do a prospective trial. With devices, if you can get a big enough effect size, then you sometimes don’t need quite as many patients to prove it. If paralysis is striking enough and you can reverse that, then you can convince the Food and Drug Administration of its safety and efficacy, and the various insurance companies, that it’s actually reasonable and necessary.
 

How long will an implantable device last?

That’s a key question and concern. If you have someone like our participant, who’s in his early 40s, will it keep working 10, 20, 30, 40 years? For the rest of his life? Deep brain stimulators and cochlear implants do function for those long durations, but their designs are quite different. There’s a macroelectrode that’s just delivering current, which is very different from listening in on this microscopic scale. There are different technical considerations.

One possible solution is to make the device out of living tissue, which is something I just wrote about with my colleague D. Kacy Cullen. Living electrodes and amplifiers may seem a bit like science fiction, but on the other hand, we have over a century of plastic surgeons, neurosurgeons, and orthopedic surgeons doing all kinds of complicated modifications of the body, moving nerves and vessels around. It makes you realize that, in a sense, they’ve already done living electrodes by doing a nerve transfer. So the question becomes whether we can refine that living electrode technology, which could then open up more possibilities.
 

Are there any final messages you’d like to share with clinician audience of this news organization?

Regardless of our specialty, we’re always telling our patients about the benefits of things like eating healthy, exercise, and sleep. Now we can point to the fact that, 2 years after stroke, all of these brain areas are still active, and devices that can potentially reverse and unparalyze your limbs may be available in the coming 5- or 10-plus years. That gives clinicians more justification to tell their patients to really stay on top of those things so that they can be in as optimal brain-mind health as possible to someday benefit from them.

Patients and their families need to be part of the conversation of where this is all going. That’s one thing that’s totally different for brain devices versus other devices, where a person’s psychological state doesn’t necessarily matter. But with a brain device, your mental state, psychosocial situation, exercise, sleep – the way you think about and approach it – actually changes to the structure of the brain pretty dramatically.

I don’t want to cause unreasonable hope that we’re going to snap our fingers and it’s going to be cured. But I do think it’s fair to raise a possibility as a way to say that keeping oneself really healthy is justified.

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

If you have had the chance to watch any TV over the last 6 months, you have probably seen the commercials for home devices that allow patients to quickly check for atrial fibrillation in the comfort of their own home.

In an ad for one of these products, KardiaMobile, a cardiologist says this device “detects atrial fibrillation, one of the major causes of stroke.” You might also have heard that the Apple Watch has an opt-in feature that constantly screens for atrial fibrillation without any effort being made by the patient, or can check on-demand for AFib if a wearer experiences palpitations or an abnormal heart beat. Both of these devices generate a standard limb–lead ECG (essentially lead I) by connecting the device to both arms and producing a 30-second rhythm strip.

KardiaMobile recently introduced a newer device. When you place this device on a bare knee and touch one electrode with fingers from the right hand and another electrode with fingers from the left hand, the device produces a six-lead ECG. These small devices send an image of the ECG to a patient’s smartphone over Bluetooth, and the results can be easily read, printed out, or sent to the doctor for further analysis. Additionally, both of KardiaMobile’s devices utilize artificial intelligence to analyze a rhythm strip in real time and let the patient know if the ECG is normal, shows AFib, or is unable to be analyzed.

The electrocardiographic technology was formerly only available in a medical setting. It required an expensive machine and could only be interpreted by someone with expertise developed through years of training. Now it is readily available to patients in their homes. But how accurate is the technology and how are we going to use it?
 

How effective is KardiaMobile at detecting AFib?

Studies have looked at both KardiaMobile and the Apple Watch. One study of KardiaMobile in patients with Afib who were admitted for antiarrhythmic drug initiation showed that about a quarter of readings could not be classified because of artifact and other reasons. After exclusion of unclassified recordings, the KardiaMobile interpretation had 97% sensitivity and 94% specificity for AFib detection when compared with physician-interpreted ECGs.¹ In a large review of the device’s accuracy, there was about 85% sensitivity and specificity of the automated readings.²

How does the Apple Watch find AFib?

Like the KardiaMobile device, the Apple Watch can be used whenever patients notice symptoms or whenever they and their physicians decide the device would be useful. In addition, though, the Apple Watch has a function where the wearer can opt in to have the watch screen for AFib in the background whenever the watch is worn.

The watch monitors heart rate using photoplethysmography, where light-sensitive photodiodes detect blood pulses to assess heart rate variability. When an irregular heart rate is detected, the AW alerts the user of possible AFib. Once alerted, the wearer can then utilize a second function to obtain a single-lead ECG. Heart rate, rhythm, and a 30-second ECG tracing are saved in the Bluetooth-linked iPhone’s health app and can be exported for review by a physician.

In a study of over 400,000 participants, among participants notified of an irregular pulse through screening there was a positive predictive value of 84%.³ Single-lead EKGs initiated by watch wearers had a specificity for AFib of 99.6% among tracings with good wave forms, indicating very few false positives. Only 1 individual of the 263 individuals who had normal sinus rhythm on 12-lead ECG was classified as having AFib, though in 7% sinus rhythm could not be confirmed because of poor tracings.^4,5
 

^{What should we do with the results?}

It’s impressive that these devices deliver accurate information with very good specificity. Our hope is that detecting AFib with one of these devices will lead to an intervention being made that will decrease a patient’s risk of stroke. But it is not clear if routine screening in asymptomatic adults will accomplish this.

While more data is needed, we must acknowledge that our patients will soon be bringing us results from home. Regardless of what we think of this technology, we need to decide what to do when patients call us with results from these devices.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. William A et al. Heart Rhythm. 2018 Oct;15(10):1561-5.

2. KardiaMobile for the ambulatory detection of atrial fibrillation. NICE Medtech innovation briefing. 29 October 2020 Oct 29. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mib232.

3. Perez MV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381:1909-17.

4. Using Apple Watch for Arrhythmia Detection, December 2018. Apple. https://www.apple.com/healthcare/site/docs/Apple_Watch_Arrhythmia_Detection.pdf. Accessed 2019 Apr 5.

5. De Novo Classification Request for ECG App. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/DEN180044.pdf. Accessed 2019 Apr 29.

If you have had the chance to watch any TV over the last 6 months, you have probably seen the commercials for home devices that allow patients to quickly check for atrial fibrillation in the comfort of their own home.

In an ad for one of these products, KardiaMobile, a cardiologist says this device “detects atrial fibrillation, one of the major causes of stroke.” You might also have heard that the Apple Watch has an opt-in feature that constantly screens for atrial fibrillation without any effort being made by the patient, or can check on-demand for AFib if a wearer experiences palpitations or an abnormal heart beat. Both of these devices generate a standard limb–lead ECG (essentially lead I) by connecting the device to both arms and producing a 30-second rhythm strip.

KardiaMobile recently introduced a newer device. When you place this device on a bare knee and touch one electrode with fingers from the right hand and another electrode with fingers from the left hand, the device produces a six-lead ECG. These small devices send an image of the ECG to a patient’s smartphone over Bluetooth, and the results can be easily read, printed out, or sent to the doctor for further analysis. Additionally, both of KardiaMobile’s devices utilize artificial intelligence to analyze a rhythm strip in real time and let the patient know if the ECG is normal, shows AFib, or is unable to be analyzed.

The electrocardiographic technology was formerly only available in a medical setting. It required an expensive machine and could only be interpreted by someone with expertise developed through years of training. Now it is readily available to patients in their homes. But how accurate is the technology and how are we going to use it?
 

How effective is KardiaMobile at detecting AFib?

Studies have looked at both KardiaMobile and the Apple Watch. One study of KardiaMobile in patients with Afib who were admitted for antiarrhythmic drug initiation showed that about a quarter of readings could not be classified because of artifact and other reasons. After exclusion of unclassified recordings, the KardiaMobile interpretation had 97% sensitivity and 94% specificity for AFib detection when compared with physician-interpreted ECGs.¹ In a large review of the device’s accuracy, there was about 85% sensitivity and specificity of the automated readings.²

How does the Apple Watch find AFib?

Like the KardiaMobile device, the Apple Watch can be used whenever patients notice symptoms or whenever they and their physicians decide the device would be useful. In addition, though, the Apple Watch has a function where the wearer can opt in to have the watch screen for AFib in the background whenever the watch is worn.

The watch monitors heart rate using photoplethysmography, where light-sensitive photodiodes detect blood pulses to assess heart rate variability. When an irregular heart rate is detected, the AW alerts the user of possible AFib. Once alerted, the wearer can then utilize a second function to obtain a single-lead ECG. Heart rate, rhythm, and a 30-second ECG tracing are saved in the Bluetooth-linked iPhone’s health app and can be exported for review by a physician.

In a study of over 400,000 participants, among participants notified of an irregular pulse through screening there was a positive predictive value of 84%.³ Single-lead EKGs initiated by watch wearers had a specificity for AFib of 99.6% among tracings with good wave forms, indicating very few false positives. Only 1 individual of the 263 individuals who had normal sinus rhythm on 12-lead ECG was classified as having AFib, though in 7% sinus rhythm could not be confirmed because of poor tracings.^4,5
 

^{What should we do with the results?}

It’s impressive that these devices deliver accurate information with very good specificity. Our hope is that detecting AFib with one of these devices will lead to an intervention being made that will decrease a patient’s risk of stroke. But it is not clear if routine screening in asymptomatic adults will accomplish this.

While more data is needed, we must acknowledge that our patients will soon be bringing us results from home. Regardless of what we think of this technology, we need to decide what to do when patients call us with results from these devices.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. William A et al. Heart Rhythm. 2018 Oct;15(10):1561-5.

2. KardiaMobile for the ambulatory detection of atrial fibrillation. NICE Medtech innovation briefing. 29 October 2020 Oct 29. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mib232.

3. Perez MV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381:1909-17.

4. Using Apple Watch for Arrhythmia Detection, December 2018. Apple. https://www.apple.com/healthcare/site/docs/Apple_Watch_Arrhythmia_Detection.pdf. Accessed 2019 Apr 5.

5. De Novo Classification Request for ECG App. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/DEN180044.pdf. Accessed 2019 Apr 29.

If you have had the chance to watch any TV over the last 6 months, you have probably seen the commercials for home devices that allow patients to quickly check for atrial fibrillation in the comfort of their own home.

In an ad for one of these products, KardiaMobile, a cardiologist says this device “detects atrial fibrillation, one of the major causes of stroke.” You might also have heard that the Apple Watch has an opt-in feature that constantly screens for atrial fibrillation without any effort being made by the patient, or can check on-demand for AFib if a wearer experiences palpitations or an abnormal heart beat. Both of these devices generate a standard limb–lead ECG (essentially lead I) by connecting the device to both arms and producing a 30-second rhythm strip.

KardiaMobile recently introduced a newer device. When you place this device on a bare knee and touch one electrode with fingers from the right hand and another electrode with fingers from the left hand, the device produces a six-lead ECG. These small devices send an image of the ECG to a patient’s smartphone over Bluetooth, and the results can be easily read, printed out, or sent to the doctor for further analysis. Additionally, both of KardiaMobile’s devices utilize artificial intelligence to analyze a rhythm strip in real time and let the patient know if the ECG is normal, shows AFib, or is unable to be analyzed.

The electrocardiographic technology was formerly only available in a medical setting. It required an expensive machine and could only be interpreted by someone with expertise developed through years of training. Now it is readily available to patients in their homes. But how accurate is the technology and how are we going to use it?
 

How effective is KardiaMobile at detecting AFib?

Studies have looked at both KardiaMobile and the Apple Watch. One study of KardiaMobile in patients with Afib who were admitted for antiarrhythmic drug initiation showed that about a quarter of readings could not be classified because of artifact and other reasons. After exclusion of unclassified recordings, the KardiaMobile interpretation had 97% sensitivity and 94% specificity for AFib detection when compared with physician-interpreted ECGs.¹ In a large review of the device’s accuracy, there was about 85% sensitivity and specificity of the automated readings.²

How does the Apple Watch find AFib?

Like the KardiaMobile device, the Apple Watch can be used whenever patients notice symptoms or whenever they and their physicians decide the device would be useful. In addition, though, the Apple Watch has a function where the wearer can opt in to have the watch screen for AFib in the background whenever the watch is worn.

The watch monitors heart rate using photoplethysmography, where light-sensitive photodiodes detect blood pulses to assess heart rate variability. When an irregular heart rate is detected, the AW alerts the user of possible AFib. Once alerted, the wearer can then utilize a second function to obtain a single-lead ECG. Heart rate, rhythm, and a 30-second ECG tracing are saved in the Bluetooth-linked iPhone’s health app and can be exported for review by a physician.

In a study of over 400,000 participants, among participants notified of an irregular pulse through screening there was a positive predictive value of 84%.³ Single-lead EKGs initiated by watch wearers had a specificity for AFib of 99.6% among tracings with good wave forms, indicating very few false positives. Only 1 individual of the 263 individuals who had normal sinus rhythm on 12-lead ECG was classified as having AFib, though in 7% sinus rhythm could not be confirmed because of poor tracings.^4,5
 

^{What should we do with the results?}

It’s impressive that these devices deliver accurate information with very good specificity. Our hope is that detecting AFib with one of these devices will lead to an intervention being made that will decrease a patient’s risk of stroke. But it is not clear if routine screening in asymptomatic adults will accomplish this.

While more data is needed, we must acknowledge that our patients will soon be bringing us results from home. Regardless of what we think of this technology, we need to decide what to do when patients call us with results from these devices.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter (@doctornotte). Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

References

1. William A et al. Heart Rhythm. 2018 Oct;15(10):1561-5.

2. KardiaMobile for the ambulatory detection of atrial fibrillation. NICE Medtech innovation briefing. 29 October 2020 Oct 29. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mib232.

3. Perez MV et al. N Engl J Med. 2019; 381:1909-17.

4. Using Apple Watch for Arrhythmia Detection, December 2018. Apple. https://www.apple.com/healthcare/site/docs/Apple_Watch_Arrhythmia_Detection.pdf. Accessed 2019 Apr 5.

5. De Novo Classification Request for ECG App. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/reviews/DEN180044.pdf. Accessed 2019 Apr 29.

Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.

“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”

The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said

The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
 

Mathematics, not hypotheses

To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.

The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.

Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
 

Heart failure and risk reduced

In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.

When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).

While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”

She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
 

Machine learning mines observational trials

Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”

He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.

“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”

He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”

The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.

Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.

“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”

The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said

The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
 

Mathematics, not hypotheses

To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.

The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.

Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
 

Heart failure and risk reduced

In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.

When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).

While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”

She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
 

Machine learning mines observational trials

Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”

He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.

“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”

He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”

The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.

Higher coffee consumption is associated with a lower risk of heart failure, according to a machine learning–based algorithm that analyzed data from three large observational trials.

“Coffee consumption actually was predictive on top of known risk factors originally identified from those three trials.” The study is significant because it underscores the potential of big data for individualizing patient management, lead investigator David Kao, MD, said in an interview. “We in fact adjusted for the scores that are commonly used to predict heart disease, and coffee consumption remained a predictor even on top of that.”

The study used supervised machine learning to analyze data on diet and other variables from three well-known observational studies: Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Cardiovascular Heart Study (CHS), and ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities). The goal of the study, published online on Feb. 9, 2021*, was to identify potential novel risk factors for incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure.

“The main difference of the relationship between coffee and heart disease, compared with prior analyses, is that we’re able to find it in these well-known and well-accepted studies that have helped us find risk factors before,” Dr. Kao said

The study included 2,732 FHS participants aged 30-62 years, 3,704 CHS patients aged 65 and older, and 14,925 ARIC subjects aged 45-64, all of whom had no history of cardiovascular disease events when they enrolled. Primary outcomes for the machine-learning study were times to incident coronary heart disease, heart failure, and stroke.
 

Mathematics, not hypotheses

To compensate for variations in methodologies between the three observational trials, the study used 204 data measurements collected at the first FHS exam, including 16 dietary variables and for which similar data were collected for the other two studies.

The machine-learning model used what’s known as a random forest analysis to identify the leading potential risk factors from among the 204 variables. To confirm findings between studies, the authors used a technique called “data harmonization” to smooth variations in the methodologies of the trials, not only with participant age and duration and date of the trials, but also in how data on coffee consumption were gathered. For example, FHS collected that data as cups per day, whereas CHS and ARIC collected that as monthly, weekly, and daily consumption. The study converted the coffee consumption data from CHS and ARIC to cups per day to conform to FHS data.

Random forest analysis is a type of machine learning that randomly creates a cluster of decision trees – the “forest” – to determine which variables, such as dietary factors, are important in predicting a result. The analysis uses mathematics, not hypotheses, to identify important variables.
 

Heart failure and risk reduced

In this study, the analysis determined that each cup of caffeinated coffee daily was linked with a 5% reduction in the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.95; P = .02) and 6% reduction in stroke risk (HR, 0.94; P = .02), but had no significant impact on risk for coronary heart disease or cardiovascular disease.

When the data were adjusted for the FHS CVD risk score, increasing coffee consumption remained significantly associated with an identical lower risk of heart failure (P = .03) but not stroke (P = .33).

While the study supports an association between coffee consumption and heart failure risk, it doesn’t establish causation, noted Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director and senior scientist at the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University, Boston. “The authors could not rule out the possibility that caffeinated coffee intake was a proxy for other heart-healthy lifestyle behaviors,” Dr. Lichtenstein said. “Perhaps the best message from the study is that there appears to be no adverse effects of drinking moderate amounts of caffeinated coffee, and there may be benefits.”

She added a note of caution. “This result does not suggest coffee intake should be increased, nor does it give license to increasing coffee drinks with a lot of added cream and sugar.”
 

Machine learning mines observational trials

Dr. Kao explained the rationale for applying a machine-learning algorithm to the three observational trials. “When these trials were designed in general, they had an idea of what they were looking for in terms of what might be a risk factor,” said Dr. Kao, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “What we were interested in doing was to look for risk factors that nobody really thought about ahead of time and let the data show us what might be a predictor without any bias of what we imagined to be true.”

He described the role of machine learning in extracting and “filtering” data from the trials. “Machine learning allows us to look at a very large number of factors or variables and identify the most important ones in predicting a specific outcome,” he said. This study evaluated the 204 variables and focused on dietary factors because they’re modifiable.

“We looked at them in these different studies where we could, and coffee was the one that was reproducible in all of them,” he said. “Machine learning helped filter down these very large numbers of variables in ways you can’t do with traditional statistics. It’s useful in studies like this because they gather thousands and thousands of variables that generally nobody uses, but these methods allow you to actually do something with them – to determine which ones are most important.”

He added: “These methods I think will take us toward personalized medicine where you’re really individualizing a plan for keeping a patient healthy. We still have a lot of work to do, but there’s a lot of promise for really helping each of us to figure out the ways we can become the healthiest that we can be.”

The study was supported with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. Dr. Kao and coauthors, as well as Dr. Lichtenstein, had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

*Correction, 2/10/21: An earlier version of this article misstated the study's publication date.

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for high-risk atrial fibrillation seems to prevent stroke as well as direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) with a lower risk of major bleeding, according to results of a European study.

And although some experts question the strength of the conclusions, a lead researcher contends the study may provide enough support for interventional cardiologists to consider LAAO in selected patients until randomized clinical trials yield stronger evidence.

“The results suggest LAAO to be superior to DOAC in AF patients who have a predicted high risk of stroke and bleeding and adds to the evidence that LAAO is a promising stroke prevention strategy in selected AF patients,” said lead investigator Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, MD, DMSc, a cardiologist at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk and colleagues wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions that this is the largest comparative study of LAAO vs. DOAC to date, but they also acknowledged the study limitations: its observational design, unaccounted confounders, potential selection bias, and disparities in the nature of the comparative datasets (a multination cohort vs. a single national registry).

Observational registry study shows 43% reduction in primary outcome

The study compared outcomes of 1,078 patients from the Amulet Observational Study who had LAAO during June 2015–September 2016 with 1,184 patients on DOAC therapy selected by propensity score matching from two Danish national registries. The LAAO population was prospectively enrolled at 61 centers in 17 countries. The study population had a high risk of stroke and bleeding; about one-third had a previous stroke and about three-quarters had a prior bleeding episode. The average age was 75 years.

The LAAO group had almost half the rate of the primary outcome – either stroke, major bleeding, or all-cause death – 256 vs. 461 events in the DOAC group with median follow-up of 2 years. The annualized event rate was significantly lower for the LAAO group: 14.5 vs. 25.7 per 100 patient years in the DOAC group. The researchers calculated the LAAO group had a relative 43% reduction risk.

Of the LAAO group, 155 patients (14.5%) died in the follow-up period, 35% of them from a cardiovascular cause, whereas 308 (26%) of patients in the DOAC group died, with a similar percentage, 36%, from a cardiovascular cause.

Using data from the Danish Cause of Death Registry, the study determined cause of death in the DOAC patients on a more granular level: 9.5% of the deaths were from vascular disease and 4.5% from stroke (the remainder in both groups were from noncardiovascular events).

Stroke incidence was similar between the two groups: 39 in the LAAO group vs. 37 in DOAC patients, conferring an 11% greater risk in the former. The risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality were significantly lower in LAAO patients, 37% and 47%, respectively. However, 50% of DOAC patients had discontinued therapy after a year of follow-up, and 58% had done so after 2 years.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk noted that the findings line up with those from the smaller PRAQUE-17 study comparing LAAO and DOAC. He added that his group is participating in two larger RCTs, CATALYST and CHAMPION-AF, evaluating LAAO and medical therapy in about 6,000 patients combined.

“It will take at least 2 to 5 years before we have data from these randomized LAAO trials,” Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk said. “Meanwhile, based on data from three prior randomized clinical trials, propensity-score matched studies and data from large registries, LAAO should be considered in clinical practice for patients who have a high risk of bleeding or who for any other reason are unsuitable for long-term DOAC treatment.”

Noncompliance to DOAC therapy a concern

In an invited commentary, Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., wrote, “These findings provide reassuring evidence supporting the efficacy of LAAO despite the remaining challenges with this therapy.”

However, Dr. Alkhouli pointed out that the high rate of noncompliance among AF patients on DOAC can be a confounding factor for interpreting the efficacy of therapy. “This highlights the challenges of comparing LAAO to DOAC, considering that many patients are actually not on effective anticoagulation, but also suggests a possible real important role for LAAO in addressing the unmet need in stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

“The study showed a very good safety profile for LAAO,” Dr. Alkhouli added. “However, we should remember that this was an observational study without routine temporal imaging and a relatively short-term follow- up.”

Methods ‘severely flawed’

John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, Ky., said the study methodology was “severely flawed,” citing its nonrandomized nature and enrollment of only patients with successful implants in the LAAO group. “You have to take all patients who had attempted implants,” he said. Further, the study may be subject to selection bias based on how patients were recruited for the Ampulet Observational Study.

“Comparing LAAO to DOAC is a vital clinical question,” said Dr. Mandrola. “It simply cannot be answered with observational methods like this. It requires a properly powered RCT.”

Dr. Alkhouli said he’s looking forward to results from five large RCTS evaluating LAAO due in 3-5 years. “Until the results of those trials are out, careful patient selection and shared decision-making should continue to govern the rational dissipation of LAAO as a stroke prevention strategy,” he said.

Novo Nordisk Research Foundation supported the study and Abbott provided a grant. Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk disclosed financial relationships with Abbott and Boston Scientific. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bayer Vital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, Portolo, and Sanofi.

Dr. Alkhouli disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific. Dr. Mandrola has no relevant disclosures. He is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for high-risk atrial fibrillation seems to prevent stroke as well as direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) with a lower risk of major bleeding, according to results of a European study.

And although some experts question the strength of the conclusions, a lead researcher contends the study may provide enough support for interventional cardiologists to consider LAAO in selected patients until randomized clinical trials yield stronger evidence.

“The results suggest LAAO to be superior to DOAC in AF patients who have a predicted high risk of stroke and bleeding and adds to the evidence that LAAO is a promising stroke prevention strategy in selected AF patients,” said lead investigator Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, MD, DMSc, a cardiologist at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk and colleagues wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions that this is the largest comparative study of LAAO vs. DOAC to date, but they also acknowledged the study limitations: its observational design, unaccounted confounders, potential selection bias, and disparities in the nature of the comparative datasets (a multination cohort vs. a single national registry).

Observational registry study shows 43% reduction in primary outcome

The study compared outcomes of 1,078 patients from the Amulet Observational Study who had LAAO during June 2015–September 2016 with 1,184 patients on DOAC therapy selected by propensity score matching from two Danish national registries. The LAAO population was prospectively enrolled at 61 centers in 17 countries. The study population had a high risk of stroke and bleeding; about one-third had a previous stroke and about three-quarters had a prior bleeding episode. The average age was 75 years.

The LAAO group had almost half the rate of the primary outcome – either stroke, major bleeding, or all-cause death – 256 vs. 461 events in the DOAC group with median follow-up of 2 years. The annualized event rate was significantly lower for the LAAO group: 14.5 vs. 25.7 per 100 patient years in the DOAC group. The researchers calculated the LAAO group had a relative 43% reduction risk.

Of the LAAO group, 155 patients (14.5%) died in the follow-up period, 35% of them from a cardiovascular cause, whereas 308 (26%) of patients in the DOAC group died, with a similar percentage, 36%, from a cardiovascular cause.

Using data from the Danish Cause of Death Registry, the study determined cause of death in the DOAC patients on a more granular level: 9.5% of the deaths were from vascular disease and 4.5% from stroke (the remainder in both groups were from noncardiovascular events).

Stroke incidence was similar between the two groups: 39 in the LAAO group vs. 37 in DOAC patients, conferring an 11% greater risk in the former. The risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality were significantly lower in LAAO patients, 37% and 47%, respectively. However, 50% of DOAC patients had discontinued therapy after a year of follow-up, and 58% had done so after 2 years.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk noted that the findings line up with those from the smaller PRAQUE-17 study comparing LAAO and DOAC. He added that his group is participating in two larger RCTs, CATALYST and CHAMPION-AF, evaluating LAAO and medical therapy in about 6,000 patients combined.

“It will take at least 2 to 5 years before we have data from these randomized LAAO trials,” Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk said. “Meanwhile, based on data from three prior randomized clinical trials, propensity-score matched studies and data from large registries, LAAO should be considered in clinical practice for patients who have a high risk of bleeding or who for any other reason are unsuitable for long-term DOAC treatment.”

Noncompliance to DOAC therapy a concern

In an invited commentary, Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., wrote, “These findings provide reassuring evidence supporting the efficacy of LAAO despite the remaining challenges with this therapy.”

However, Dr. Alkhouli pointed out that the high rate of noncompliance among AF patients on DOAC can be a confounding factor for interpreting the efficacy of therapy. “This highlights the challenges of comparing LAAO to DOAC, considering that many patients are actually not on effective anticoagulation, but also suggests a possible real important role for LAAO in addressing the unmet need in stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

“The study showed a very good safety profile for LAAO,” Dr. Alkhouli added. “However, we should remember that this was an observational study without routine temporal imaging and a relatively short-term follow- up.”

Methods ‘severely flawed’

John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, Ky., said the study methodology was “severely flawed,” citing its nonrandomized nature and enrollment of only patients with successful implants in the LAAO group. “You have to take all patients who had attempted implants,” he said. Further, the study may be subject to selection bias based on how patients were recruited for the Ampulet Observational Study.

“Comparing LAAO to DOAC is a vital clinical question,” said Dr. Mandrola. “It simply cannot be answered with observational methods like this. It requires a properly powered RCT.”

Dr. Alkhouli said he’s looking forward to results from five large RCTS evaluating LAAO due in 3-5 years. “Until the results of those trials are out, careful patient selection and shared decision-making should continue to govern the rational dissipation of LAAO as a stroke prevention strategy,” he said.

Novo Nordisk Research Foundation supported the study and Abbott provided a grant. Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk disclosed financial relationships with Abbott and Boston Scientific. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bayer Vital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, Portolo, and Sanofi.

Dr. Alkhouli disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific. Dr. Mandrola has no relevant disclosures. He is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) for high-risk atrial fibrillation seems to prevent stroke as well as direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) with a lower risk of major bleeding, according to results of a European study.

And although some experts question the strength of the conclusions, a lead researcher contends the study may provide enough support for interventional cardiologists to consider LAAO in selected patients until randomized clinical trials yield stronger evidence.

“The results suggest LAAO to be superior to DOAC in AF patients who have a predicted high risk of stroke and bleeding and adds to the evidence that LAAO is a promising stroke prevention strategy in selected AF patients,” said lead investigator Jens Erik Nielsen-Kudsk, MD, DMSc, a cardiologist at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk and colleagues wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions that this is the largest comparative study of LAAO vs. DOAC to date, but they also acknowledged the study limitations: its observational design, unaccounted confounders, potential selection bias, and disparities in the nature of the comparative datasets (a multination cohort vs. a single national registry).

Observational registry study shows 43% reduction in primary outcome

The study compared outcomes of 1,078 patients from the Amulet Observational Study who had LAAO during June 2015–September 2016 with 1,184 patients on DOAC therapy selected by propensity score matching from two Danish national registries. The LAAO population was prospectively enrolled at 61 centers in 17 countries. The study population had a high risk of stroke and bleeding; about one-third had a previous stroke and about three-quarters had a prior bleeding episode. The average age was 75 years.

The LAAO group had almost half the rate of the primary outcome – either stroke, major bleeding, or all-cause death – 256 vs. 461 events in the DOAC group with median follow-up of 2 years. The annualized event rate was significantly lower for the LAAO group: 14.5 vs. 25.7 per 100 patient years in the DOAC group. The researchers calculated the LAAO group had a relative 43% reduction risk.

Of the LAAO group, 155 patients (14.5%) died in the follow-up period, 35% of them from a cardiovascular cause, whereas 308 (26%) of patients in the DOAC group died, with a similar percentage, 36%, from a cardiovascular cause.

Using data from the Danish Cause of Death Registry, the study determined cause of death in the DOAC patients on a more granular level: 9.5% of the deaths were from vascular disease and 4.5% from stroke (the remainder in both groups were from noncardiovascular events).

Stroke incidence was similar between the two groups: 39 in the LAAO group vs. 37 in DOAC patients, conferring an 11% greater risk in the former. The risk of major bleeding and all-cause mortality were significantly lower in LAAO patients, 37% and 47%, respectively. However, 50% of DOAC patients had discontinued therapy after a year of follow-up, and 58% had done so after 2 years.

Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk noted that the findings line up with those from the smaller PRAQUE-17 study comparing LAAO and DOAC. He added that his group is participating in two larger RCTs, CATALYST and CHAMPION-AF, evaluating LAAO and medical therapy in about 6,000 patients combined.

“It will take at least 2 to 5 years before we have data from these randomized LAAO trials,” Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk said. “Meanwhile, based on data from three prior randomized clinical trials, propensity-score matched studies and data from large registries, LAAO should be considered in clinical practice for patients who have a high risk of bleeding or who for any other reason are unsuitable for long-term DOAC treatment.”

Noncompliance to DOAC therapy a concern

In an invited commentary, Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, of the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., wrote, “These findings provide reassuring evidence supporting the efficacy of LAAO despite the remaining challenges with this therapy.”

However, Dr. Alkhouli pointed out that the high rate of noncompliance among AF patients on DOAC can be a confounding factor for interpreting the efficacy of therapy. “This highlights the challenges of comparing LAAO to DOAC, considering that many patients are actually not on effective anticoagulation, but also suggests a possible real important role for LAAO in addressing the unmet need in stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

“The study showed a very good safety profile for LAAO,” Dr. Alkhouli added. “However, we should remember that this was an observational study without routine temporal imaging and a relatively short-term follow- up.”

Methods ‘severely flawed’

John Mandrola, MD, an electrophysiologist at Baptist Health in Louisville, Ky., said the study methodology was “severely flawed,” citing its nonrandomized nature and enrollment of only patients with successful implants in the LAAO group. “You have to take all patients who had attempted implants,” he said. Further, the study may be subject to selection bias based on how patients were recruited for the Ampulet Observational Study.

“Comparing LAAO to DOAC is a vital clinical question,” said Dr. Mandrola. “It simply cannot be answered with observational methods like this. It requires a properly powered RCT.”

Dr. Alkhouli said he’s looking forward to results from five large RCTS evaluating LAAO due in 3-5 years. “Until the results of those trials are out, careful patient selection and shared decision-making should continue to govern the rational dissipation of LAAO as a stroke prevention strategy,” he said.

Novo Nordisk Research Foundation supported the study and Abbott provided a grant. Dr. Nielsen-Kudsk disclosed financial relationships with Abbott and Boston Scientific. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bayer Vital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Pfizer, Portolo, and Sanofi.

Dr. Alkhouli disclosed a relationship with Boston Scientific. Dr. Mandrola has no relevant disclosures. He is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.