Richard Mark Kirkner

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A controlled study of sleep-deprived young adults has provided the first causal evidence linking the lack of sleep to abdominal obesity and harmful visceral, or “belly” fat. In what the researchers claim is the first-ever study evaluating the relationship between sleep restriction and body fat distribution, they’ve reported the novel finding that the expansion of abdominal adipose tissue, and especially visceral fat, occurred as a function of shortened sleep.

Naima Covassin, PhD, a researcher in cardiovascular medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., led the randomized, controlled study of 12 healthy, nonobese people randomized to controlled sleep restriction – 2 weeks of 4 hours of sleep a night – or controlled sleep of 9 hours a night, followed by a 3-day recovery period. The study was conducted in the hospital, monitored participants’ caloric intake, and used accelerometry to monitor energy expense. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 39 years.

“What we found was that at the end of 2 weeks these people put on just about a pound, 0.5 kg, of extra weight, which was significant but still very modest,” senior author Virend K. Somers, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “The average person who sleeps 4 hours a night thinks they’re doing OK if they only put on a pound.” Dr. Somers is the Alice Sheets Marriott Professor in Cardiovascular Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

“The problem is,” he said, “that when you do a more specific analysis you find that actually with the 1 pound the significant increase of the fat is in the belly area, particularly inside the belly.”

The study found that the patients on curtailed sleep ate on average an additional 308 calories a day more than their controlled sleep counterparts (95% confidence interval, 59.2-556.8 kcal/day; P = .015), and while that translated into a 0.5-kg weight gain (95% CI, 0.1-0.8 kg; P = .008), it also led to a 7.8-cm² increase visceral adipose tissue (VAT) (95% CI, 0.3-15.3 cm²; P = .042), representing an increase of around 11%. The study used CT on day 1 and day 18 (1 day after the 3-day recovery period) to evaluate the distribution of abdominal fat.

VAT findings post recovery

After the recovery period, however, the study found that VAT in the sleep-curtailed patients kept rising, yet body weight and subcutaneous fat dropped, and the increase in total abdominal fat flattened. “They slept a lot, they ate fewer calories and their weight came down, but, very importantly, their belly fat went up even further,” Dr. Somers said. On average, it increased another 3.125 cm² by day 21.

The findings raised a number of questions that need further exploration, Dr. Somers said. “There’s some biochemical message in the body that’s continuing to send fat to the visceral compartment,” he said. “What we don’t know is whether repetitive episodes of inadequate sleep actually accumulate over the years to give people a preponderance of belly fat.”

The study also showed that the traditional parameters used for evaluating cardiovascular risk are not enough, Dr. Somers said. “If we just did body weight, body mass index, and overall body fat percentage, we’d completely miss this,” he said.

Future investigations should focus on two points, he said: identifying the mechanisms that cause VAT accumulation with less sleep, and whether extending sleep can reverse the process.

“The big worry is obviously the heart,” Dr. Somers said. “Remember, these are not sick people. These are young healthy people who are doing the wrong thing with their body fat; they’re sending the fat to the completely wrong place.”

In an invited editorial, endocrinologist Harold Bays, MD, wrote that the study confirmed the need for evaluating sleep disorders as a potential cause of accumulated VAT. Dr. Bays of the University of Louisville (Ky.) is medical director and president of the Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center.

“The biggest misconception of many clinicians, and some cardiologists, is that obesity is not a disease,” Dr. Bays said in an interview. “Even when some clinicians believe obesity is a disease, they believe its pathogenic potential is limited to visceral fat.” He noted that subcutaneous fat can lead to accumulation of VAT and epicardial fat, as well as fatty infiltration of the liver and other vital organs, resulting in increased epicardial adipose tissue and indirect adverse effects on the heart.

“Thus, even if disruption of sleep does not increase body weight, if disruption of sleep results in fat dysfunction – “sick fat” or adiposopathy – then this may result in increased CVD risk factors and unhealthy body composition, including an increase in visceral fat,” Dr. Bays said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Somers disclosed relationships with Baker Tilly, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Sleep Number and Respicardia. Coauthors had no disclosures. Dr. Bays is medical director of Your Body Goal and chief science officer of the Obesity Medical Association.

A year of high-intensity interval training seemed to benefit obese middle-aged adults at a high risk of heart failure, but omega-3 fatty acid supplementation didn’t have any effect on cardiac biomarkers measured in a small, single-center, prospective study.

“One year of HIIT training reduces adiposity but had no consistent effect on myocardial triglyceride content or visceral adiposity,” wrote lead author Christopher M. Hearon Jr., PhD, and colleagues in JACC: Heart Failure. “However, long-duration HIIT improves fitness and induces favorable cardiac remodeling.” Omega-3 supplementation, however, had “no independent or additive effect.” Dr. Hearon is an instructor of applied clinical research at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Investigators there and at the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas studied 80 patients aged 40-55 years classified as high risk for HF and obese, randomizing them to a year of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with supplementation of either 1.6 g omega-3 FA or placebo daily; or to a control group split between supplementation or placebo. Fifty-six patients completed the 1-year study, with a compliance rate of 90% in the HIIT group and 92% in those assigned omega-3 FA supplementation.

Carl J. “Chip” Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans, commented that, although the study was “extremely well done from an excellent research group,” it was limited by its small population and relatively short follow-up. Future research should evaluate HIIT and moderate exercise on clinical events over a longer term as well as different doses of omega-3 “There is tremendous potential for omega-3 in heart failure prevention and treatment.”
 

HIIT boosts exercise capacity, more

In the study, the HIIT group showed improvement in a number of cardiac markers: around a 22% improvement in exercise capacity as measured by absolute peak and relative peak oxygen uptake (VO₂), even without significant weight loss. They improved an average of 0.43 L/min (0.32-0.53; P < .0001) and 4.46 mL/kg per minute (3.18-5.56; ^P < .0001), respectively.

The researchers attributed the increase in peak VO₂ to an increase in peak cardiac output averaging 2.15 L/min (95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.39; P = .001) and stroke volume averaging 9.46 mL (95% CI, 0.65-18.27; P = .04). A year of exercise training also resulted in changes in cardiac remodeling, including increases in left ventricle mass and LV end diastolic volume, averaging 9.4 g (95% CI, 4.36-14.44; P < .001) and 12.33 mL (95% CI, 5.61-19.05; P < .001), respectively.  

The study also found that neither intervention had any appreciable impact on body weight, body mass index, body surface area or lean mass, or markers of arterial or local carotid stiffness. The exercise group had a modest decrease in fat mass, averaging 2.63 kg (95% CI,–4.81 to –0.46; P = .02), but without any effect from omega-3 supplementation.

The study acknowledged that high-dose omega-3 supplements have been found to lower triglyceride levels in people with severe hypertriglyceridemia, and hypothesized that HIIT alone or with omega-3 supplementation would improve fitness and biomarkers in people with stage A HF. “Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that one year of n-3FA [omega-3 FA] supplementation had no detectable effect on any parameter related to cardiopulmonary fitness, cardiovascular remodeling/stiffness, visceral adiposity, or myocardial triglyceride content,” Dr. Hearon and colleagues wrote.

The study “shows that obese middle-aged patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] can markedly improve their fitness with HIIT and, generally, fitness is one of the strongest if not the strongest predictor of prognosis and survival,” said Dr. Lavie.

“Studies are needed on exercise that improves fitness in both HF with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF, but especially HFpEF,” he said.

The study received funding from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Hearon and coauthors have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lavie is a speaker and consultant for PAI Health, the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s and DSM Nutritional Products.
 

A year of high-intensity interval training seemed to benefit obese middle-aged adults at a high risk of heart failure, but omega-3 fatty acid supplementation didn’t have any effect on cardiac biomarkers measured in a small, single-center, prospective study.

“One year of HIIT training reduces adiposity but had no consistent effect on myocardial triglyceride content or visceral adiposity,” wrote lead author Christopher M. Hearon Jr., PhD, and colleagues in JACC: Heart Failure. “However, long-duration HIIT improves fitness and induces favorable cardiac remodeling.” Omega-3 supplementation, however, had “no independent or additive effect.” Dr. Hearon is an instructor of applied clinical research at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Investigators there and at the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas studied 80 patients aged 40-55 years classified as high risk for HF and obese, randomizing them to a year of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with supplementation of either 1.6 g omega-3 FA or placebo daily; or to a control group split between supplementation or placebo. Fifty-six patients completed the 1-year study, with a compliance rate of 90% in the HIIT group and 92% in those assigned omega-3 FA supplementation.

Carl J. “Chip” Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans, commented that, although the study was “extremely well done from an excellent research group,” it was limited by its small population and relatively short follow-up. Future research should evaluate HIIT and moderate exercise on clinical events over a longer term as well as different doses of omega-3 “There is tremendous potential for omega-3 in heart failure prevention and treatment.”
 

HIIT boosts exercise capacity, more

In the study, the HIIT group showed improvement in a number of cardiac markers: around a 22% improvement in exercise capacity as measured by absolute peak and relative peak oxygen uptake (VO₂), even without significant weight loss. They improved an average of 0.43 L/min (0.32-0.53; P < .0001) and 4.46 mL/kg per minute (3.18-5.56; ^P < .0001), respectively.

The researchers attributed the increase in peak VO₂ to an increase in peak cardiac output averaging 2.15 L/min (95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.39; P = .001) and stroke volume averaging 9.46 mL (95% CI, 0.65-18.27; P = .04). A year of exercise training also resulted in changes in cardiac remodeling, including increases in left ventricle mass and LV end diastolic volume, averaging 9.4 g (95% CI, 4.36-14.44; P < .001) and 12.33 mL (95% CI, 5.61-19.05; P < .001), respectively.  

The study also found that neither intervention had any appreciable impact on body weight, body mass index, body surface area or lean mass, or markers of arterial or local carotid stiffness. The exercise group had a modest decrease in fat mass, averaging 2.63 kg (95% CI,–4.81 to –0.46; P = .02), but without any effect from omega-3 supplementation.

The study acknowledged that high-dose omega-3 supplements have been found to lower triglyceride levels in people with severe hypertriglyceridemia, and hypothesized that HIIT alone or with omega-3 supplementation would improve fitness and biomarkers in people with stage A HF. “Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that one year of n-3FA [omega-3 FA] supplementation had no detectable effect on any parameter related to cardiopulmonary fitness, cardiovascular remodeling/stiffness, visceral adiposity, or myocardial triglyceride content,” Dr. Hearon and colleagues wrote.

The study “shows that obese middle-aged patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] can markedly improve their fitness with HIIT and, generally, fitness is one of the strongest if not the strongest predictor of prognosis and survival,” said Dr. Lavie.

“Studies are needed on exercise that improves fitness in both HF with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF, but especially HFpEF,” he said.

The study received funding from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Hearon and coauthors have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lavie is a speaker and consultant for PAI Health, the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s and DSM Nutritional Products.
 

A year of high-intensity interval training seemed to benefit obese middle-aged adults at a high risk of heart failure, but omega-3 fatty acid supplementation didn’t have any effect on cardiac biomarkers measured in a small, single-center, prospective study.

“One year of HIIT training reduces adiposity but had no consistent effect on myocardial triglyceride content or visceral adiposity,” wrote lead author Christopher M. Hearon Jr., PhD, and colleagues in JACC: Heart Failure. “However, long-duration HIIT improves fitness and induces favorable cardiac remodeling.” Omega-3 supplementation, however, had “no independent or additive effect.” Dr. Hearon is an instructor of applied clinical research at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

Investigators there and at the Institute for Exercise and Environmental Medicine at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas studied 80 patients aged 40-55 years classified as high risk for HF and obese, randomizing them to a year of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with supplementation of either 1.6 g omega-3 FA or placebo daily; or to a control group split between supplementation or placebo. Fifty-six patients completed the 1-year study, with a compliance rate of 90% in the HIIT group and 92% in those assigned omega-3 FA supplementation.

Carl J. “Chip” Lavie, MD, of the John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans, commented that, although the study was “extremely well done from an excellent research group,” it was limited by its small population and relatively short follow-up. Future research should evaluate HIIT and moderate exercise on clinical events over a longer term as well as different doses of omega-3 “There is tremendous potential for omega-3 in heart failure prevention and treatment.”
 

HIIT boosts exercise capacity, more

In the study, the HIIT group showed improvement in a number of cardiac markers: around a 22% improvement in exercise capacity as measured by absolute peak and relative peak oxygen uptake (VO₂), even without significant weight loss. They improved an average of 0.43 L/min (0.32-0.53; P < .0001) and 4.46 mL/kg per minute (3.18-5.56; ^P < .0001), respectively.

The researchers attributed the increase in peak VO₂ to an increase in peak cardiac output averaging 2.15 L/min (95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.39; P = .001) and stroke volume averaging 9.46 mL (95% CI, 0.65-18.27; P = .04). A year of exercise training also resulted in changes in cardiac remodeling, including increases in left ventricle mass and LV end diastolic volume, averaging 9.4 g (95% CI, 4.36-14.44; P < .001) and 12.33 mL (95% CI, 5.61-19.05; P < .001), respectively.  

The study also found that neither intervention had any appreciable impact on body weight, body mass index, body surface area or lean mass, or markers of arterial or local carotid stiffness. The exercise group had a modest decrease in fat mass, averaging 2.63 kg (95% CI,–4.81 to –0.46; P = .02), but without any effect from omega-3 supplementation.

The study acknowledged that high-dose omega-3 supplements have been found to lower triglyceride levels in people with severe hypertriglyceridemia, and hypothesized that HIIT alone or with omega-3 supplementation would improve fitness and biomarkers in people with stage A HF. “Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that one year of n-3FA [omega-3 FA] supplementation had no detectable effect on any parameter related to cardiopulmonary fitness, cardiovascular remodeling/stiffness, visceral adiposity, or myocardial triglyceride content,” Dr. Hearon and colleagues wrote.

The study “shows that obese middle-aged patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] can markedly improve their fitness with HIIT and, generally, fitness is one of the strongest if not the strongest predictor of prognosis and survival,” said Dr. Lavie.

“Studies are needed on exercise that improves fitness in both HF with reduced ejection fraction and HFpEF, but especially HFpEF,” he said.

The study received funding from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Network. Dr. Hearon and coauthors have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lavie is a speaker and consultant for PAI Health, the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s and DSM Nutritional Products.
 

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

A high percentage of people with type 2 diabetes also have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but fewer than 1 in 20 get the triumvirate of evidence-based medications – drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels – that can mitigate the dominant health risks they face, a large multicenter cohort study reported.

The cohort consisted of 324,706 patients with diabetes and ASCVD in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network in 2018.

Senior study author Christopher B. Granger, MD, said in an interview that the findings represent “a shocking underuse of treatments proven to improve outcomes in this high-risk population.” For example, he noted that high-intensity statins are “inexpensive, well tolerated, and highly effective, but the fact that they’re only used in 26.8% of this population is really an indictment and embarrassment for our health-care system.”

The study analyzed prescriptions of high-intensity statins to lower cholesterol, ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) for blood pressure, and SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists for hyperglycemia in a population with both diabetes and ASCVD.

This study amplifies the perceived treatment gap in cardiovascular risk reduction in persons with diabetes,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, of the Center for Diabetes and Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla., said in an interview. “The unfortunate treatment deficiency documented among 325,000 patients in 12 health systems is carefully quantitated and the message is loud, clear, and simple: There is gross underutilization of agents – ACE inhibitors and ARBs, SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and high-intensity statins – with definitively proven ASCVD benefit.”

Overcoming barriers to prescriptions

The study noted that more work needs to be done to overcome the barriers to more widespread use of these therapies in patients with both diabetes and ASCVD.

Specifically with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, cost was more likely to be a barrier than with the other drug groups, but that didn’t explain the low levels of high-intensity statin prescriptions, said Dr. Granger of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The first barrier he mentioned is what he called “clinical inertia.” He said: “I’m a cardiologist who cares for these patients in my clinic each week, and there are so many different things that we need to be trying to achieve with the brief time we have with each patient in our clinic setting that people tend to miss the opportunity.”

The cost barrier, especially with the glucose-lowering therapies, can be overcome with clinic and health care system programs that aid patients in getting discounted drugs, he noted.

Other barriers Dr. Granger pointed out are lack of education – “So many people think that people with previous muscle aches can’t take a high-intensity statin, and we know that’s not true” – and misinformation, which he called “the more nefarious issue.”

He said, “Part of the problem is that misinformation travels much faster than accurate information. There’s so much out there about statins being toxic, which is just not true.”

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care system and the lack of feedback on quality measures, and physicians deferring decisions on glucose-lowering therapy to endocrinologists also pose barriers to more widespread use of evidence-based therapies in patients with diabetes and ASCVD, Dr. Granger said.

“This is a call to action,” Dr. Granger said. “By clearly describing these gaps, we hope that people will see this as an important opportunity to improve care not only at the level of individual providers, but even more importantly at the level of health systems.”

Dr. Jellinger said the “dismal results” of the study serve as a “wake-up call,” adding that “my own perception among my colleagues, along with the data referred to in this article, point to definitely higher usage among commercially insured patients. However, even in more enriched populations the message is not having its full impact. We have remarkable agents for our patients with diabetes that can make a real impact in diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. Our twofold goal should be to aggressively educate a broad slate of health care professionals and, of course, make patient access easy and affordable without ‘prior authorization.’ ”

The study noted the need to bring the prescribing patterns for patients with both diabetes and ASCVD more in line with evidence-based guidelines. To that end, said Dr. Granger, the researchers are moving ahead on a randomized study of a quality improvement project involving about 45 U.S. cardiology clinics using a feedback loop to apply more consistent prescribing patterns for the three therapy groups. “Hopefully a year from now we’ll have a lot more information about this problem,” Dr. Granger added.

Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly funded the study. Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, Medtronic, Akros Pharma, Apple, AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AbbVie, Bayer, Boston Scientific, CeleCor, Correvio, Espero, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Rhoshan Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Jellinger is on speaker’s bureaus for Esperion and Amgen.
 

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations in the United States and Europe, and almost one-third of these patients go on to develop asthma later in childhood.

But a multinational team of researchers has presented evidence that could avoid that outcome. They identified four different subtypes of bronchiolitis along with a decision tree that can determine which infants are most likely to develop asthma as they get older.

Reporting in the journal eClinical Medicine, Michimasa Fujiogi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, and colleagues analyzed three multicenter prospective cohort studies that included a combined 3,081 infants hospitalized with severe bronchiolitis.

“This study added a base for the early identification of high-risk patients during early infancy,” Dr. Fujiogi said in an interview. “Using the prediction rule of this study, it is possible to identify groups at high risk of asthma during a critical period of airway development – early infancy.”

The researchers identified four clinically distinct and reproducible profiles of infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis:

• A: characterized by a history of breathing problems and eczema, rhinovirus infection, and low prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.
• B: characterized by the classic symptoms of wheezing and cough at presentation, a low prevalence of previous breathing problems and rhinovirus infection, and a high likelihood of RSV infection.
• C: the most severe group, characterized by inadequate oral intake, severe retraction at presentation, and longer hospital stays.
• D: the least ill group, with little history of breathing problems but inadequate oral intake with no or mild retraction.

Infants with profile A had the highest risk for developing asthma – more than 250% greater than with typical bronchiolitis. They were also older and were more likely to have parents who had asthma – and none had solo-RSV infection. In the overall analysis, the risk for developing asthma by age 6 or 7 was 23%.

The researchers stated that the decision tree accurately predicts the high-risk profile with high degrees of sensitivity and specificity. The decision tree used four predictors that together defined infants with profile A: RSV infection status, previous breathing problems, eczema, and parental asthma.

“Our data would facilitate the development of profile-specific prevention strategies for asthma – for example, modification of host response, prophylaxis for severe viral infection – by identifying asthma risk groups early in infancy,” Dr. Fujiogi said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fujiogi and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations in the United States and Europe, and almost one-third of these patients go on to develop asthma later in childhood.

But a multinational team of researchers has presented evidence that could avoid that outcome. They identified four different subtypes of bronchiolitis along with a decision tree that can determine which infants are most likely to develop asthma as they get older.

Reporting in the journal eClinical Medicine, Michimasa Fujiogi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, and colleagues analyzed three multicenter prospective cohort studies that included a combined 3,081 infants hospitalized with severe bronchiolitis.

“This study added a base for the early identification of high-risk patients during early infancy,” Dr. Fujiogi said in an interview. “Using the prediction rule of this study, it is possible to identify groups at high risk of asthma during a critical period of airway development – early infancy.”

The researchers identified four clinically distinct and reproducible profiles of infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis:

• A: characterized by a history of breathing problems and eczema, rhinovirus infection, and low prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.
• B: characterized by the classic symptoms of wheezing and cough at presentation, a low prevalence of previous breathing problems and rhinovirus infection, and a high likelihood of RSV infection.
• C: the most severe group, characterized by inadequate oral intake, severe retraction at presentation, and longer hospital stays.
• D: the least ill group, with little history of breathing problems but inadequate oral intake with no or mild retraction.

Infants with profile A had the highest risk for developing asthma – more than 250% greater than with typical bronchiolitis. They were also older and were more likely to have parents who had asthma – and none had solo-RSV infection. In the overall analysis, the risk for developing asthma by age 6 or 7 was 23%.

The researchers stated that the decision tree accurately predicts the high-risk profile with high degrees of sensitivity and specificity. The decision tree used four predictors that together defined infants with profile A: RSV infection status, previous breathing problems, eczema, and parental asthma.

“Our data would facilitate the development of profile-specific prevention strategies for asthma – for example, modification of host response, prophylaxis for severe viral infection – by identifying asthma risk groups early in infancy,” Dr. Fujiogi said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fujiogi and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Bronchiolitis is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations in the United States and Europe, and almost one-third of these patients go on to develop asthma later in childhood.

But a multinational team of researchers has presented evidence that could avoid that outcome. They identified four different subtypes of bronchiolitis along with a decision tree that can determine which infants are most likely to develop asthma as they get older.

Reporting in the journal eClinical Medicine, Michimasa Fujiogi, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard University, Boston, and colleagues analyzed three multicenter prospective cohort studies that included a combined 3,081 infants hospitalized with severe bronchiolitis.

“This study added a base for the early identification of high-risk patients during early infancy,” Dr. Fujiogi said in an interview. “Using the prediction rule of this study, it is possible to identify groups at high risk of asthma during a critical period of airway development – early infancy.”

The researchers identified four clinically distinct and reproducible profiles of infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis:

• A: characterized by a history of breathing problems and eczema, rhinovirus infection, and low prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection.
• B: characterized by the classic symptoms of wheezing and cough at presentation, a low prevalence of previous breathing problems and rhinovirus infection, and a high likelihood of RSV infection.
• C: the most severe group, characterized by inadequate oral intake, severe retraction at presentation, and longer hospital stays.
• D: the least ill group, with little history of breathing problems but inadequate oral intake with no or mild retraction.

Infants with profile A had the highest risk for developing asthma – more than 250% greater than with typical bronchiolitis. They were also older and were more likely to have parents who had asthma – and none had solo-RSV infection. In the overall analysis, the risk for developing asthma by age 6 or 7 was 23%.

The researchers stated that the decision tree accurately predicts the high-risk profile with high degrees of sensitivity and specificity. The decision tree used four predictors that together defined infants with profile A: RSV infection status, previous breathing problems, eczema, and parental asthma.

“Our data would facilitate the development of profile-specific prevention strategies for asthma – for example, modification of host response, prophylaxis for severe viral infection – by identifying asthma risk groups early in infancy,” Dr. Fujiogi said.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fujiogi and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

Creators of a pilot program that educates preschoolers about good heart health have validated a template for successful early childhood intervention that, they claim, provides a pathway for translating scientific evidence into the community and classroom for educational purposes to encourage long-lasting lifestyle changes.

That validation supports the creators' plans to take the program into more schools.

They reported key lessons in crafting the program, known as the SI! Program (for Salud Integral-Comprehensive Health), online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Mount Sinai Hospital

“This is a research-based program that uses randomized clinical trial evidence with implementation strategies to design educational health promotion programs,” senior author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, founder and trustees chairman of the Foundation for Science, Health, and Education (SHE) based in Barcelona, under whose aegis the SI! Program was implemented, said in an interview. Dr. Fuster is also director of Mount Sinai Heart and physician-in-chief at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, and general director of the National Center for Cardiovascular Investigation (CNIC) in Madrid, Spain’s equivalent of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

“There are specific times in a child’s life when improvements can be made to enhance long-term cardiovascular health status,” said Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez, MD, PhD, group leader of the cardiovascular health and imaging lab at CNIC and study coauthor. “Our review, and previous studies, suggest that 4-5 years of age is the most favorable time to start a school-based intervention focused on healthy habits.”

A key piece of the SI! Program used a Sesame Street character, known as Dr. Ruster, a Muppet based on Dr. Fuster, to introduce and convey most messages and activities to the preschool children. The program also used a heart-shaped mascot named “Cardio” to teach about healthy behaviors. Other components include video segments, a colorful storybook, an interactive board game, flash cards, and a teacher’s guide. The activities and messages were tailored based on the country in which the program was implemented.
 

A decade of experience

The review evaluated 10 years of experience with the preschool-based program, drawing upon cluster-randomized clinical trials of the program in three countries with different socioeconomic conditions: Colombia, Spain, and the United States. The studies randomized schools to receive the SI! Program for 4 months or to a control group and included more than 3,800 children from 50 schools, along with their parents or caregivers and teachers. The studies found significant increases in preschoolers’ knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward healthy eating and living an active lifestyle. Now, the SI! Program is expanding into more than 250 schools in Spain and more than 40 schools in all five boroughs of New York City.

“This is a multidimensional program,” Dr. Fuster said. The review identified five stages for implementing the program: dissemination; adoption; implementation; evaluation; and institutionalization.

Dissemination involves three substages for intervention: components, design, and strategy. With regard to the components, said Dr. Fuster, “We’re targeting children to educate them in four topics: how the body works; nutritional and dietary requirements; physical activity; and the need to control emotions – to say no in the future when they’re confronted with alcohol, drugs, and tobacco.”

Design involved a multidisciplinary team of experts to develop the intervention, Dr. Fuster said. The strategy itself enlists parents and teachers in the implementation, but goes beyond that. “This is a community,” Dr. Fuster said. Hence, the school environment and classroom itself are also engaged to support the message of the four topics.

Dr. Fuster said future research should look at knowledge, attitude, and habits and biological outcomes in children who’ve been in the SI! Program when they reach adolescence. “Our hypothesis is that we can do this in older children, but when they reach age 10 we want to reintervene in them,” Dr. Fuster said. “Humans need reintervention. Our findings don’t get into sustainability.” He added that further research should also identify socioeconomic factors that influence child health.

Expanding the program across the New York City’s five boroughs “offers a unique opportunity to explore which socioeconomic factors, at both the family and borough level, and may eventually affect children’s health, how they are implicated in the intervention’s effectiveness, and how they can be addressed to reduce the gap in health inequalities,” he said. 

Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician affiliated with Yale New Haven (Conn.) Medical Center, noted the program’s multidimensional nature is an important element. “I think what is so important about this intervention is that it is not one single intervention but a curriculum that takes a significant amount of time (up to 50 hours) that allows for repetition of the information, which allows it to become remembered,” she said in an interview. “I also think incorporating families in the intervention is key as that is where change often has to happen.”

While she said the program may provide a template for a mental health curriculum, she added, “My concern is that teachers are already feeling overwhelmed and this may be viewed as another burden.”

The American Heart Association provided funding for the study in the United States. Dr Fernández-Jiménez has received funding from the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Instituto de Salud Carlos III, which is cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund. Dr. Fuster and Dr. Kinsella have no relevant disclosures.

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

A feasibility study has found that coronary artery calcium scanning has the potential to better target patients who truly need statin therapy, reduce unnecessary statin prescriptions, and improve medication adherence than the current standard of using pooled cohort equations to determine atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Researchers at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Intermountain Healthcare, a network of 25 hospitals in Utah, reported that the rate of statin usage in patients evaluated with coronary artery calcium (CAC) was 25% lower than in those whose treatment decisions were based on pooled cohort equations (PCE). None of the patients were on statin therapy when they enrolled in the study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“This study demonstrates that doing a large outcomes trial is feasible and has a reasonable likelihood of perhaps being a positive trial for the use of CAC,” lead author Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Muhlestein is codirector of cardiovascular research at Intermountain Healthcare and a professor at the University of Utah.

The findings address the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline that states PCE is the “single most robust tool for estimating 10-year risk in U.S. adults 40-75 years of age”. However, the guideline also bases statin determination on shared decision-making between the patient and physician, and recommends CAC for patients for whom a decision about statin treatment is uncertain and those at intermediate risk to fine-tune the need for statins.

The results also have spurred a larger randomized trial known as CorCal, which aims to enroll 5,500 patients and compare CAC and PCE, Dr. Muhlestein said. So far 3,000 patients have been enrolled.
 

Results of CAC vs. PCE

The feasibility study enrolled 601 patients randomized to CAC (302) or PCE (299), 504 of whom were included in the final analysis. In the CAC group, 35.9% went on statin therapy, compared with 47.9% of the PCE patients (P = .005). Participating physicians accepted the study-dictated recommendation to start a statin in 88.1% of patients in the CAC arm versus 75.0% in the PCE arm.

Dr. Muhlestein noted that the feasibility study did not evaluate key outcomes, such as stroke or heart attack, but they will be a key endpoint of the larger randomized trial. “We found in this feasibility study that the recommendations that come from the CAC arm, compared with the PCE arm are significantly different enough that there may be a different outcome,” he said.

“There were cases in which the PCE did not recommend a statin but the patient had a lot of coronary calcium, so we recommended the statin in that patient,” he said. “At the same time, there were also even more patients in which the PCE said they ought to take a statin but they had zero coronary calcium, so we didn’t recommend that they get a statin.”

Compared with PCE-based recommendations, CAC patients were taken off statins in 36% of cases and put on statins in 5.6% of cases. “We think that PCE gives statins to a lot of patients who don’t really need them,” Dr. Muhlestein said.

The feasibility study also found patients were more adherent to therapy if they had CAC than PCE – 63.3% versus 45.6% at a year (P = .03). “Patients and physicians are more likely to be concerned enough to begin preventative therapy when they know that they are not just at risk for the disease, but they actually have the disease; that’s what the CAC score tells them,” Dr. Muhlestein said.

He noted that, while observational evidence has embraced CAC, insurers have been hesitant to cover it. “That is one of the major motivations for us to do this study,” Dr. Muhlestein said. “CAC is not very expensive; it costs less than $100, which is about what it costs to get a lipid panel, but insurance won’t pay for it because we haven’t proved that CAC actually changes outcomes, and that’s a legitimate complaint. But, of course, there’s never been a randomized trial that proves that a PCE changes outcomes either.”

The findings validate the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline “and opens a way to broader use for CAC for statin assessment,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, chair of the ACC/AHA 2013 guideline-writing committee and vice chair of the 2018 committee. “The study confirms a large body of information that a deterministic approach, i.e., calcium score, outperforms a probabilistic approach on an individual patient level.” Dr. Stone is the Bonow Professor of Medicine at Northwestern University and medical director of the Vascular Center of the Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

“I applaud the investigators for using this as a hypothesis-generating study and planning a larger, more definitive trial,” he said. “This study would encourage regulators and insurance companies to support the use of calcium scores as recommended by the 2018 guideline.”

Intermountain Healthcare is the sole source of funding for the CorCal feasibility study. Dr. Muhlestein and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose.
 

A feasibility study has found that coronary artery calcium scanning has the potential to better target patients who truly need statin therapy, reduce unnecessary statin prescriptions, and improve medication adherence than the current standard of using pooled cohort equations to determine atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Researchers at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Intermountain Healthcare, a network of 25 hospitals in Utah, reported that the rate of statin usage in patients evaluated with coronary artery calcium (CAC) was 25% lower than in those whose treatment decisions were based on pooled cohort equations (PCE). None of the patients were on statin therapy when they enrolled in the study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“This study demonstrates that doing a large outcomes trial is feasible and has a reasonable likelihood of perhaps being a positive trial for the use of CAC,” lead author Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Muhlestein is codirector of cardiovascular research at Intermountain Healthcare and a professor at the University of Utah.

The findings address the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline that states PCE is the “single most robust tool for estimating 10-year risk in U.S. adults 40-75 years of age”. However, the guideline also bases statin determination on shared decision-making between the patient and physician, and recommends CAC for patients for whom a decision about statin treatment is uncertain and those at intermediate risk to fine-tune the need for statins.

The results also have spurred a larger randomized trial known as CorCal, which aims to enroll 5,500 patients and compare CAC and PCE, Dr. Muhlestein said. So far 3,000 patients have been enrolled.
 

Results of CAC vs. PCE

The feasibility study enrolled 601 patients randomized to CAC (302) or PCE (299), 504 of whom were included in the final analysis. In the CAC group, 35.9% went on statin therapy, compared with 47.9% of the PCE patients (P = .005). Participating physicians accepted the study-dictated recommendation to start a statin in 88.1% of patients in the CAC arm versus 75.0% in the PCE arm.

Dr. Muhlestein noted that the feasibility study did not evaluate key outcomes, such as stroke or heart attack, but they will be a key endpoint of the larger randomized trial. “We found in this feasibility study that the recommendations that come from the CAC arm, compared with the PCE arm are significantly different enough that there may be a different outcome,” he said.

“There were cases in which the PCE did not recommend a statin but the patient had a lot of coronary calcium, so we recommended the statin in that patient,” he said. “At the same time, there were also even more patients in which the PCE said they ought to take a statin but they had zero coronary calcium, so we didn’t recommend that they get a statin.”

Compared with PCE-based recommendations, CAC patients were taken off statins in 36% of cases and put on statins in 5.6% of cases. “We think that PCE gives statins to a lot of patients who don’t really need them,” Dr. Muhlestein said.

The feasibility study also found patients were more adherent to therapy if they had CAC than PCE – 63.3% versus 45.6% at a year (P = .03). “Patients and physicians are more likely to be concerned enough to begin preventative therapy when they know that they are not just at risk for the disease, but they actually have the disease; that’s what the CAC score tells them,” Dr. Muhlestein said.

He noted that, while observational evidence has embraced CAC, insurers have been hesitant to cover it. “That is one of the major motivations for us to do this study,” Dr. Muhlestein said. “CAC is not very expensive; it costs less than $100, which is about what it costs to get a lipid panel, but insurance won’t pay for it because we haven’t proved that CAC actually changes outcomes, and that’s a legitimate complaint. But, of course, there’s never been a randomized trial that proves that a PCE changes outcomes either.”

The findings validate the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline “and opens a way to broader use for CAC for statin assessment,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, chair of the ACC/AHA 2013 guideline-writing committee and vice chair of the 2018 committee. “The study confirms a large body of information that a deterministic approach, i.e., calcium score, outperforms a probabilistic approach on an individual patient level.” Dr. Stone is the Bonow Professor of Medicine at Northwestern University and medical director of the Vascular Center of the Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

“I applaud the investigators for using this as a hypothesis-generating study and planning a larger, more definitive trial,” he said. “This study would encourage regulators and insurance companies to support the use of calcium scores as recommended by the 2018 guideline.”

Intermountain Healthcare is the sole source of funding for the CorCal feasibility study. Dr. Muhlestein and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose.
 

A feasibility study has found that coronary artery calcium scanning has the potential to better target patients who truly need statin therapy, reduce unnecessary statin prescriptions, and improve medication adherence than the current standard of using pooled cohort equations to determine atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Researchers at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Intermountain Healthcare, a network of 25 hospitals in Utah, reported that the rate of statin usage in patients evaluated with coronary artery calcium (CAC) was 25% lower than in those whose treatment decisions were based on pooled cohort equations (PCE). None of the patients were on statin therapy when they enrolled in the study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“This study demonstrates that doing a large outcomes trial is feasible and has a reasonable likelihood of perhaps being a positive trial for the use of CAC,” lead author Joseph B. Muhlestein, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Muhlestein is codirector of cardiovascular research at Intermountain Healthcare and a professor at the University of Utah.

The findings address the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline that states PCE is the “single most robust tool for estimating 10-year risk in U.S. adults 40-75 years of age”. However, the guideline also bases statin determination on shared decision-making between the patient and physician, and recommends CAC for patients for whom a decision about statin treatment is uncertain and those at intermediate risk to fine-tune the need for statins.

The results also have spurred a larger randomized trial known as CorCal, which aims to enroll 5,500 patients and compare CAC and PCE, Dr. Muhlestein said. So far 3,000 patients have been enrolled.
 

Results of CAC vs. PCE

The feasibility study enrolled 601 patients randomized to CAC (302) or PCE (299), 504 of whom were included in the final analysis. In the CAC group, 35.9% went on statin therapy, compared with 47.9% of the PCE patients (P = .005). Participating physicians accepted the study-dictated recommendation to start a statin in 88.1% of patients in the CAC arm versus 75.0% in the PCE arm.

Dr. Muhlestein noted that the feasibility study did not evaluate key outcomes, such as stroke or heart attack, but they will be a key endpoint of the larger randomized trial. “We found in this feasibility study that the recommendations that come from the CAC arm, compared with the PCE arm are significantly different enough that there may be a different outcome,” he said.

“There were cases in which the PCE did not recommend a statin but the patient had a lot of coronary calcium, so we recommended the statin in that patient,” he said. “At the same time, there were also even more patients in which the PCE said they ought to take a statin but they had zero coronary calcium, so we didn’t recommend that they get a statin.”

Compared with PCE-based recommendations, CAC patients were taken off statins in 36% of cases and put on statins in 5.6% of cases. “We think that PCE gives statins to a lot of patients who don’t really need them,” Dr. Muhlestein said.

The feasibility study also found patients were more adherent to therapy if they had CAC than PCE – 63.3% versus 45.6% at a year (P = .03). “Patients and physicians are more likely to be concerned enough to begin preventative therapy when they know that they are not just at risk for the disease, but they actually have the disease; that’s what the CAC score tells them,” Dr. Muhlestein said.

He noted that, while observational evidence has embraced CAC, insurers have been hesitant to cover it. “That is one of the major motivations for us to do this study,” Dr. Muhlestein said. “CAC is not very expensive; it costs less than $100, which is about what it costs to get a lipid panel, but insurance won’t pay for it because we haven’t proved that CAC actually changes outcomes, and that’s a legitimate complaint. But, of course, there’s never been a randomized trial that proves that a PCE changes outcomes either.”

The findings validate the 2018 ACC/AHA guideline “and opens a way to broader use for CAC for statin assessment,” said Neil J. Stone, MD, chair of the ACC/AHA 2013 guideline-writing committee and vice chair of the 2018 committee. “The study confirms a large body of information that a deterministic approach, i.e., calcium score, outperforms a probabilistic approach on an individual patient level.” Dr. Stone is the Bonow Professor of Medicine at Northwestern University and medical director of the Vascular Center of the Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

“I applaud the investigators for using this as a hypothesis-generating study and planning a larger, more definitive trial,” he said. “This study would encourage regulators and insurance companies to support the use of calcium scores as recommended by the 2018 guideline.”

Intermountain Healthcare is the sole source of funding for the CorCal feasibility study. Dr. Muhlestein and Dr. Stone have no relevant relationships to disclose.