Cardiology News

When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.

The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Network

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.

The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Network

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When my normally adorable cat Biscuit bit my ankle in a playful stalking exercise gone wrong, I washed it with soap and some rubbing alcohol, slapped on a Band-Aid, and went about my day.

The next morning, when it was swollen, I told myself it was probably just a hematoma and went about my day.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

JAMA Network

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stroke rates in Californians with sickle cell disease (SCD) have increased in both children and adults in the post-STOP era. The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Innovation (HCAI), covering emergency department and hospitalization records from 1991 to 2019.
• A total of 7636 patients with SCD were included in the study cohort.
• Cumulative incidence and rates for primary and recurrent strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) were determined pre- and post STOP trial.
• Patients with SCD were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, with specific criteria for inclusion based on hospitalization records.
• The study utilized Fine and Gray methodology to calculate cumulative incidence functions, accounting for the competing risk for death.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke in patients with SCD was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.
• Ischemic stroke rates increased significantly in children and adults in the 2010-2019 period, compared with the preceding decade.
• Risk factors for stroke and TIA included increasing age, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
• The study found a significant increase in rates of intracranial hemorrhage in adults aged 18-30 years and TIAs in children younger than 18 years from 2010 to 2019, compared with the prior decade.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neurovascular complications, including strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), are common and cause significant morbidity in individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). The STOP trial (1998) established chronic transfusions as the standard of care for children with SCD at high risk for stroke,” the study’s authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Olubusola B. Oluwole, MD, MS, University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s reliance on administrative data may have introduced systematic errors, particularly with the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes. The lack of laboratory results and medication data in the HCAI database limited the ability to fully assess patient conditions and treatments. Additionally, the methodology changes in 2014 likely underreported death rates in people without PDD/EDU encounters in the calendar year preceding their death.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stroke rates in Californians with sickle cell disease (SCD) have increased in both children and adults in the post-STOP era. The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Innovation (HCAI), covering emergency department and hospitalization records from 1991 to 2019.
• A total of 7636 patients with SCD were included in the study cohort.
• Cumulative incidence and rates for primary and recurrent strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) were determined pre- and post STOP trial.
• Patients with SCD were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, with specific criteria for inclusion based on hospitalization records.
• The study utilized Fine and Gray methodology to calculate cumulative incidence functions, accounting for the competing risk for death.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke in patients with SCD was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.
• Ischemic stroke rates increased significantly in children and adults in the 2010-2019 period, compared with the preceding decade.
• Risk factors for stroke and TIA included increasing age, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
• The study found a significant increase in rates of intracranial hemorrhage in adults aged 18-30 years and TIAs in children younger than 18 years from 2010 to 2019, compared with the prior decade.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neurovascular complications, including strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), are common and cause significant morbidity in individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). The STOP trial (1998) established chronic transfusions as the standard of care for children with SCD at high risk for stroke,” the study’s authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Olubusola B. Oluwole, MD, MS, University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s reliance on administrative data may have introduced systematic errors, particularly with the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes. The lack of laboratory results and medication data in the HCAI database limited the ability to fully assess patient conditions and treatments. Additionally, the methodology changes in 2014 likely underreported death rates in people without PDD/EDU encounters in the calendar year preceding their death.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Stroke rates in Californians with sickle cell disease (SCD) have increased in both children and adults in the post-STOP era. The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the California Department of Health Care Access and Innovation (HCAI), covering emergency department and hospitalization records from 1991 to 2019.
• A total of 7636 patients with SCD were included in the study cohort.
• Cumulative incidence and rates for primary and recurrent strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs) were determined pre- and post STOP trial.
• Patients with SCD were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes, with specific criteria for inclusion based on hospitalization records.
• The study utilized Fine and Gray methodology to calculate cumulative incidence functions, accounting for the competing risk for death.

TAKEAWAY:

• The cumulative incidence of first ischemic stroke in patients with SCD was 2.1% by age 20 and 13.5% by age 60.
• Ischemic stroke rates increased significantly in children and adults in the 2010-2019 period, compared with the preceding decade.
• Risk factors for stroke and TIA included increasing age, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.
• The study found a significant increase in rates of intracranial hemorrhage in adults aged 18-30 years and TIAs in children younger than 18 years from 2010 to 2019, compared with the prior decade.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neurovascular complications, including strokes and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), are common and cause significant morbidity in individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). The STOP trial (1998) established chronic transfusions as the standard of care for children with SCD at high risk for stroke,” the study’s authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Olubusola B. Oluwole, MD, MS, University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and was published online in Blood.

LIMITATIONS:

This study’s reliance on administrative data may have introduced systematic errors, particularly with the transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes. The lack of laboratory results and medication data in the HCAI database limited the ability to fully assess patient conditions and treatments. Additionally, the methodology changes in 2014 likely underreported death rates in people without PDD/EDU encounters in the calendar year preceding their death.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As a physician, you might be contacted by the media to provide your professional opinion and advice. Or you might be looking for media interview opportunities to market your practice or side project. And if you do research, media interviews can be an effective way to spread the word. It’s important to prepare for a media interview so that you achieve the outcome you are looking for. Here are six tips I learned from writing health articles, interviewing experts, and being interviewed myself. 

Keep your message simple. When you are a subject expert, you might think that the basics are obvious or even boring, and that the nuances are more important. However, most of the audience is looking for big-picture information that they can apply to their lives. Consider a few key takeaways, keeping in mind that your interview is likely to be edited to short sound bites or a few quotes. It may help to jot down notes so that you cover the fundamentals clearly. You could even write and rehearse a script beforehand. If there is something complicated or subtle that you want to convey, you can preface it by saying, “This is confusing but very important …” to let the audience know to give extra consideration to what you are about to say.

Avoid extremes and hyperbole. Sometimes, exaggerated statements make their way into medical discussions. Statements such as “it doesn’t matter how many calories you consume — it’s all about the quality” are common oversimplifications. But you might be upset to see your name next to a comment like this because it is not actually correct. Check the phrasing of your key takeaways to avoid being stuck defending or explaining an inaccurate statement when your patients ask you about it later. 

Ask the interviewers what they are looking for. Many medical topics have some controversial element, so it is good to know what you’re getting into. Find out the purpose of the article or interview before you decide whether it is right for you. It could be about another doctor in town who is being sued; if you don’t want to be associated with that story, it might be best to decline the interview. 

Explain your goals. You might accept or pursue an interview to raise awareness about an underrecognized condition. You might want the public to identify and get help for early symptoms, or you might want to create empathy for people coping with a disease you treat. Consider why you are participating in an interview, and communicate that to the interviewer to ensure that your objective can be part of the final product. 

Know whom you’re dealing with. It is good to learn about the publication/media channel before you agree to participate. It may have a political bias, or perhaps the interview is intended to promote a specific product. If you agree with and support their purposes, then you may be happy to lend your opinion. But learning about the “voice” of the publication in advance allows you to make an informed decision about whether you want to be identified with a particular political ideology or product endorsement.

Ask to see your quotes before publication. It’s good to have the opportunity to make corrections in case you are accidentally misquoted or misunderstood. It is best to ask to see quotes before you agree to the interview. Some reporters may agree to (or even prefer) a written question-and-answer format so that they can directly quote your responses without rephrasing your words. You could suggest this, especially if you are too busy for a call or live meeting.

As a physician, your insights and advice can be highly beneficial to others. You can also use media interviews to propel your career forward. Doing your homework can ensure that you will be pleased with the final product and how your words were used. 
 

Dr. Moawad, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plant-based diets have become increasingly popular over the last decade as the evidence supporting their health benefits becomes stronger. 

Research pooled from nearly 100 studies has indicated that people who adhere to a vegan diet (ie, completely devoid of animal products) or a vegetarian diet (ie, devoid of meat, but may include dairy and eggs) are able to ward off some chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, optimize glycemic control, and decrease their risk for cancer compared with those who consume omnivorous diets. 

Vegan and vegetarian diets, or flexitarian diets — which are less reliant on animal protein than the standard US diet but do not completely exclude meat, fish, eggs, or dairy — may promote homeostasis and decrease inflammation by providing more fiber, antioxidants, and unsaturated fatty acids than the typical Western diet. 
 

Inflammation and Obesity

Adipose tissue is a major producer of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin (IL)-6, whose presence then triggers a rush of acute-phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) by the liver. This process develops into chronic low-grade inflammation that can increase a person’s chances of developing diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, and related complications.

Adopting a plant-based diet can improve markers of chronic low-grade inflammation that can lead to chronic disease and worsen existent chronic disease. A meta-analysis of 29 studies encompassing nearly 2700 participants found that initiation of a plant-based diet showed significant improvement in CRP, IL-6, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1. 

If we want to prevent these inflammatory disease states and their complications, the obvious response is to counsel patients to avoid excessive weight gain or to lose weight if obesity is their baseline. This can be tough for some patients, but it is nonetheless an important step in chronic disease prevention and management.
 

Plant-Based Diet for Type 2 Diabetes

According to a review of nine studies of patients living with type 2 diabetes who adhered to a plant-based diet, all but one found that this approach led to significantly lower A1c values than those seen in control groups. Six of the included studies reported that participants were able to decrease or discontinue medications for the management of diabetes. Researchers across all included studies also noted a decrease in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as increased weight loss in participants in each intervention group. 

Such improvements are probably the result of the increase in fiber intake that occurs with a plant-based diet. A high-fiber diet is known to promote improved glucose and lipid metabolism as well as weight loss. 

It is also worth noting that participants in the intervention groups also experienced improvements in depression and less chronic pain than did those in the control groups. 
 

Plant-Based Diet for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

Although the use of a plant-based diet in the prevention of CKD is well documented, adopting such diets for the treatment of CKD may intimidate both patients and practitioners owing to the high potassium and phosphorus content of many fruits and vegetables.

However, research indicates that the bioavailability of both potassium and phosphorus is lower in plant-based, whole foods than in preservatives and the highly processed food items that incorporate them. This makes a plant-based diet more viable than previously thought. 

Diets rich in vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes have been shown to decrease dietary acid load, both preventing and treating metabolic acidosis. Such diets have also been shown to decrease blood pressure and the risk for a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate. This type of diet would also prioritize the unsaturated fatty acids and fiber-rich proteins such as avocados, beans, and nuts shown to improve dyslipidemia, which may occur alongside CKD.
 

Realistic Options for Patients on Medical Diets

There is one question that I always seem to get from when recommending a plant-based diet: “These patients already have so many restrictions. Why would you add more?” And my answer is also always the same: I don’t. 

I rarely, if ever, recommend completely cutting out any food item or food group. Instead, I ask the patient to increase their intake of plant-based foods and only limit highly processed foods and fatty meats. By shifting a patient’s focus to beans; nuts; and low-carbohydrate, high-fiber fruits and vegetables, I am often opening up a whole new world of possibilities. 

Instead of a sandwich with low-sodium turkey and cheese on white bread with a side of unsalted pretzels, I recommend a caprese salad with blueberries and almonds or a Southwest salad with black beans, corn, and avocado. I don’t encourage my patients to skip the foods that they love, but instead to only think about all the delicious plant-based options that will provide them with more than just calories.

Meat, dairy, seafood, and eggs can certainly be a part of a healthy diet, but what if our chronically ill patients, especially those with diabetes, had more options than just grilled chicken and green beans for every meal? What if we focus on decreasing dietary restrictions, incorporating a variety of nourishing foods, and educating our patients, instead of on portion control and moderation? 

This is how I choose to incorporate plant-based diets into my practice to treat and prevent these chronic inflammatory conditions and promote sustainable, realistic change in my clients’ health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plant-based diets have become increasingly popular over the last decade as the evidence supporting their health benefits becomes stronger. 

Research pooled from nearly 100 studies has indicated that people who adhere to a vegan diet (ie, completely devoid of animal products) or a vegetarian diet (ie, devoid of meat, but may include dairy and eggs) are able to ward off some chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, optimize glycemic control, and decrease their risk for cancer compared with those who consume omnivorous diets. 

Vegan and vegetarian diets, or flexitarian diets — which are less reliant on animal protein than the standard US diet but do not completely exclude meat, fish, eggs, or dairy — may promote homeostasis and decrease inflammation by providing more fiber, antioxidants, and unsaturated fatty acids than the typical Western diet. 
 

Inflammation and Obesity

Adipose tissue is a major producer of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin (IL)-6, whose presence then triggers a rush of acute-phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) by the liver. This process develops into chronic low-grade inflammation that can increase a person’s chances of developing diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, and related complications.

Adopting a plant-based diet can improve markers of chronic low-grade inflammation that can lead to chronic disease and worsen existent chronic disease. A meta-analysis of 29 studies encompassing nearly 2700 participants found that initiation of a plant-based diet showed significant improvement in CRP, IL-6, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1. 

If we want to prevent these inflammatory disease states and their complications, the obvious response is to counsel patients to avoid excessive weight gain or to lose weight if obesity is their baseline. This can be tough for some patients, but it is nonetheless an important step in chronic disease prevention and management.
 

Plant-Based Diet for Type 2 Diabetes

According to a review of nine studies of patients living with type 2 diabetes who adhered to a plant-based diet, all but one found that this approach led to significantly lower A1c values than those seen in control groups. Six of the included studies reported that participants were able to decrease or discontinue medications for the management of diabetes. Researchers across all included studies also noted a decrease in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as increased weight loss in participants in each intervention group. 

Such improvements are probably the result of the increase in fiber intake that occurs with a plant-based diet. A high-fiber diet is known to promote improved glucose and lipid metabolism as well as weight loss. 

It is also worth noting that participants in the intervention groups also experienced improvements in depression and less chronic pain than did those in the control groups. 
 

Plant-Based Diet for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

Although the use of a plant-based diet in the prevention of CKD is well documented, adopting such diets for the treatment of CKD may intimidate both patients and practitioners owing to the high potassium and phosphorus content of many fruits and vegetables.

However, research indicates that the bioavailability of both potassium and phosphorus is lower in plant-based, whole foods than in preservatives and the highly processed food items that incorporate them. This makes a plant-based diet more viable than previously thought. 

Diets rich in vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes have been shown to decrease dietary acid load, both preventing and treating metabolic acidosis. Such diets have also been shown to decrease blood pressure and the risk for a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate. This type of diet would also prioritize the unsaturated fatty acids and fiber-rich proteins such as avocados, beans, and nuts shown to improve dyslipidemia, which may occur alongside CKD.
 

Realistic Options for Patients on Medical Diets

There is one question that I always seem to get from when recommending a plant-based diet: “These patients already have so many restrictions. Why would you add more?” And my answer is also always the same: I don’t. 

I rarely, if ever, recommend completely cutting out any food item or food group. Instead, I ask the patient to increase their intake of plant-based foods and only limit highly processed foods and fatty meats. By shifting a patient’s focus to beans; nuts; and low-carbohydrate, high-fiber fruits and vegetables, I am often opening up a whole new world of possibilities. 

Instead of a sandwich with low-sodium turkey and cheese on white bread with a side of unsalted pretzels, I recommend a caprese salad with blueberries and almonds or a Southwest salad with black beans, corn, and avocado. I don’t encourage my patients to skip the foods that they love, but instead to only think about all the delicious plant-based options that will provide them with more than just calories.

Meat, dairy, seafood, and eggs can certainly be a part of a healthy diet, but what if our chronically ill patients, especially those with diabetes, had more options than just grilled chicken and green beans for every meal? What if we focus on decreasing dietary restrictions, incorporating a variety of nourishing foods, and educating our patients, instead of on portion control and moderation? 

This is how I choose to incorporate plant-based diets into my practice to treat and prevent these chronic inflammatory conditions and promote sustainable, realistic change in my clients’ health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Plant-based diets have become increasingly popular over the last decade as the evidence supporting their health benefits becomes stronger. 

Research pooled from nearly 100 studies has indicated that people who adhere to a vegan diet (ie, completely devoid of animal products) or a vegetarian diet (ie, devoid of meat, but may include dairy and eggs) are able to ward off some chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, optimize glycemic control, and decrease their risk for cancer compared with those who consume omnivorous diets. 

Vegan and vegetarian diets, or flexitarian diets — which are less reliant on animal protein than the standard US diet but do not completely exclude meat, fish, eggs, or dairy — may promote homeostasis and decrease inflammation by providing more fiber, antioxidants, and unsaturated fatty acids than the typical Western diet. 
 

Inflammation and Obesity

Adipose tissue is a major producer of pro-inflammatory cytokines like interleukin (IL)-6, whose presence then triggers a rush of acute-phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) by the liver. This process develops into chronic low-grade inflammation that can increase a person’s chances of developing diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, and related complications.

Adopting a plant-based diet can improve markers of chronic low-grade inflammation that can lead to chronic disease and worsen existent chronic disease. A meta-analysis of 29 studies encompassing nearly 2700 participants found that initiation of a plant-based diet showed significant improvement in CRP, IL-6, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1. 

If we want to prevent these inflammatory disease states and their complications, the obvious response is to counsel patients to avoid excessive weight gain or to lose weight if obesity is their baseline. This can be tough for some patients, but it is nonetheless an important step in chronic disease prevention and management.
 

Plant-Based Diet for Type 2 Diabetes

According to a review of nine studies of patients living with type 2 diabetes who adhered to a plant-based diet, all but one found that this approach led to significantly lower A1c values than those seen in control groups. Six of the included studies reported that participants were able to decrease or discontinue medications for the management of diabetes. Researchers across all included studies also noted a decrease in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, as well as increased weight loss in participants in each intervention group. 

Such improvements are probably the result of the increase in fiber intake that occurs with a plant-based diet. A high-fiber diet is known to promote improved glucose and lipid metabolism as well as weight loss. 

It is also worth noting that participants in the intervention groups also experienced improvements in depression and less chronic pain than did those in the control groups. 
 

Plant-Based Diet for Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD)

Although the use of a plant-based diet in the prevention of CKD is well documented, adopting such diets for the treatment of CKD may intimidate both patients and practitioners owing to the high potassium and phosphorus content of many fruits and vegetables.

However, research indicates that the bioavailability of both potassium and phosphorus is lower in plant-based, whole foods than in preservatives and the highly processed food items that incorporate them. This makes a plant-based diet more viable than previously thought. 

Diets rich in vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes have been shown to decrease dietary acid load, both preventing and treating metabolic acidosis. Such diets have also been shown to decrease blood pressure and the risk for a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate. This type of diet would also prioritize the unsaturated fatty acids and fiber-rich proteins such as avocados, beans, and nuts shown to improve dyslipidemia, which may occur alongside CKD.
 

Realistic Options for Patients on Medical Diets

There is one question that I always seem to get from when recommending a plant-based diet: “These patients already have so many restrictions. Why would you add more?” And my answer is also always the same: I don’t. 

I rarely, if ever, recommend completely cutting out any food item or food group. Instead, I ask the patient to increase their intake of plant-based foods and only limit highly processed foods and fatty meats. By shifting a patient’s focus to beans; nuts; and low-carbohydrate, high-fiber fruits and vegetables, I am often opening up a whole new world of possibilities. 

Instead of a sandwich with low-sodium turkey and cheese on white bread with a side of unsalted pretzels, I recommend a caprese salad with blueberries and almonds or a Southwest salad with black beans, corn, and avocado. I don’t encourage my patients to skip the foods that they love, but instead to only think about all the delicious plant-based options that will provide them with more than just calories.

Meat, dairy, seafood, and eggs can certainly be a part of a healthy diet, but what if our chronically ill patients, especially those with diabetes, had more options than just grilled chicken and green beans for every meal? What if we focus on decreasing dietary restrictions, incorporating a variety of nourishing foods, and educating our patients, instead of on portion control and moderation? 

This is how I choose to incorporate plant-based diets into my practice to treat and prevent these chronic inflammatory conditions and promote sustainable, realistic change in my clients’ health.

Brandy Winfree Root, a renal dietitian in private practice in Mary Esther, Florida, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This October, millions of Americans missed out on two of the most spectacular shows in the universe: the northern lights and a rare comet. Even if you were aware of them, light pollution made them difficult to see, unless you went to a dark area and let your eyes adjust.

It’s not getting any easier — the night sky over North America has been growing brighter by about 10% per year since 2011. More and more research is linking all that light pollution to a surprising range of health consequences: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and even low sperm quality, though the reasons for these troubling associations are not always clear. 

“We’ve lost the contrast between light and dark, and we are confusing our physiology on a regular basis,” said John Hanifin, PhD, associate director of Thomas Jefferson University’s Light Research Program. 

Our own galaxy is invisible to nearly 80% of people in North America. In 1994, an earthquake-triggered blackout in Los Angeles led to calls to the Griffith Observatory from people wondering about that hazy blob of light in the night sky. It was the Milky Way.

Glaring headlights, illuminated buildings, blazing billboards, and streetlights fill our urban skies with a glow that even affects rural residents. Inside, since the invention of the lightbulb, we’ve kept our homes bright at night. Now, we’ve also added blue light-emitting devices — smartphones, television screens, tablets — which have been linked to sleep problems.

But outdoor light may matter for our health, too. “Every photon counts,” Hanifin said. 
 

Bright Lights, Big Problems

For one 2024 study researchers used satellite data to measure light pollution at residential addresses of over 13,000 people. They found that those who lived in places with the brightest skies at night had a 31% higher risk of high blood pressure. Another study out of Hong Kong showed a 29% higher risk of death from coronary heart disease. And yet another found a 17%higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, such as strokes or brain aneurysms. 

Of course, urban areas also have air pollution, noise, and a lack of greenery. So, for some studies, scientists controlled for these factors, and the correlation remained strong (although air pollution with fine particulate matter appeared to be worse for heart health than outdoor light). 

Research has found links between the nighttime glow outside and other diseases:

Breast cancer. “It’s a very strong correlation,” said Randy Nelson, PhD, a neuroscientist at West Virginia University. A study of over 100,000 teachers in California revealed that women living in areas with the most light pollution had a 12%higher risk. That effect is comparable to increasing your intake of ultra-processed foods by 10%. 

Alzheimer’s disease. In a study published this fall, outdoor light at night was more strongly linked to the disease than even alcohol misuse or obesity.

Diabetes. In one recent study, people living in the most illuminated areas had a 28% higher risk of diabetes than those residing in much darker places. In a country like China, scientists concluded that 9 million cases of diabetes could be linked to light pollution. 
 

What Happens in Your Body When You’re Exposed to Light at Night

Research has revealed that light at night (indoors or out) disrupts circadian clocks, increases inflammation, affects cell division, and suppresses melatonin, the “hormone of darkness.” “Darkness is very important,” Hanifin said. When he and his colleagues decades ago started studying the effects of light on human physiology, “people thought we were borderline crazy,” he said.

Nighttime illumination affects the health and behavior of species as diverse as Siberian hamsters, zebra finches, mice, crickets, and mosquitoes. Like most creatures on Earth, humans have internal clocks that are synced to the 24-hour cycle of day and night. The master clock is in your hypothalamus, a diamond-shaped part of the brain, but every cell in your body has its own clock, too. Many physiological processes run on circadian rhythms (a term derived from a Latin phrase meaning “about a day”), from sleep-wake cycle to hormone secretion, as well as processes involved in cancer progression, such as cell division.

“There are special photoreceptors in the eye that don’t deal with visual information. They just send light information,” Nelson said. “If you get light at the wrong time, you’re resetting the clocks.” 

This internal clock “prepares the body for various recurrent challenges, such as eating,” said Christian Benedict, PhD, a sleep researcher at Uppsala University, Sweden. “Light exposure [at night] can mess up this very important system.” This could mean, for instance, that your insulin is released at the wrong time, Benedict said, causing “a jet lag-ish condition that will then impair the ability to handle blood sugar.” Animal studies confirm that exposure to light at night can reduce glucose tolerance and alter insulin secretion – potential pathways to diabetes.

The hormone melatonin, produced when it’s dark by the pineal gland in the brain, is a key player in this modern struggle. Melatonin helps you sleep, synchronizes the body’s circadian rhythms, protects neurons from damage, regulates the immune system, and fights inflammation. But even a sliver of light at night can suppress its secretion. Less than 30 lux of light, about the level of a pedestrian street at night, can slash melatonin by half. 

When lab animals are exposed to nighttime light, they “show enormous neuroinflammation” — that is, inflammation of nervous tissue, Nelson said. In one experiment on humans, those who slept immersed in weak light had higher levels of C-reactive protein in their blood, a marker of inflammation.

Low melatonin has also been linked to cancer. It “allows the metabolic machinery of the cancer cells to be active,” Hanifin said. One of melatonin’s effects is stimulation of natural killer cells, which can recognize and destroy cancer cells. What’s more, when melatonin plunges, estrogen may go up, which could explain the link between light at night and breast cancer (estrogen fuels tumor growth in breast cancers). 

Researchers concede that satellite data might be too coarse to estimate how much light people are actually exposed to while they sleep. Plus, many of us are staring at bright screens. “But the studies keep coming,” Nelson said, suggesting that outdoor light pollution does have an impact. 

When researchers put wrist-worn light sensors on over 80,000 British people, they found that the more light the device registered between half-past midnight and 6 a.m., the more its wearer was at risk of having diabetes several years down the road — no matter how long they’ve actually slept. This, according to the study’s authors, supports the findings of satellite data.

A similar study that used actigraphy with built-in light sensors, measuring whether people had been sleeping in complete darkness for at least five hours, found that light pollution upped the risk of heart disease by 74%.
 

What Can You Do About This?

Not everyone’s melatonin is affected by nighttime light to the same degree. “Some people are very much sensitive to very dim light, whereas others are not as sensitive and need far, far more light stimulation [to impact melatonin],” Benedict said. In one study, some volunteers needed 350 lux to lower their melatonin by half. For such people, flipping on the light in the bathroom at night wouldn’t matter; for others, though, a mere 6 lux was already as harmful – which is darker than twilight. 

You can protect yourself by keeping your bedroom lights off and your screens stashed away, but avoiding outdoor light pollution may be harder. You can invest in high-quality blackout curtains, of course, although some light may still seep inside. You can plant trees in front of your windows, reorient any motion-detector lights, and even petition your local government to reduce over-illumination of buildings and to choose better streetlights. You can support organizations, such as the International Dark-Sky Association, that work to preserve darkness.

Last but not least, you might want to change your habits. If you live in a particularly light-polluted area, such as the District of Columbia, America’s top place for urban blaze, you might reconsider late-night walks or drives around the neighborhood. Instead, Hanifin said, read a book in bed, while keeping the light “as dim as you can.” It’s “a much better idea versus being outside in midtown Manhattan,” he said. According to recent recommendations published by Hanifin and his colleagues, when you sleep, there should be no more than 1 lux of illumination at the level of your eyes — about as much as you’d get from having a lit candle 1 meter away. 

And if we manage to preserve outdoor darkness, and the stars reappear (including the breathtaking Milky Way), we could reap more benefits — some research suggests that stargazing can elicit positive emotions, a sense of personal growth, and “a variety of transcendent thoughts and experiences.” 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

This October, millions of Americans missed out on two of the most spectacular shows in the universe: the northern lights and a rare comet. Even if you were aware of them, light pollution made them difficult to see, unless you went to a dark area and let your eyes adjust.

It’s not getting any easier — the night sky over North America has been growing brighter by about 10% per year since 2011. More and more research is linking all that light pollution to a surprising range of health consequences: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and even low sperm quality, though the reasons for these troubling associations are not always clear. 

“We’ve lost the contrast between light and dark, and we are confusing our physiology on a regular basis,” said John Hanifin, PhD, associate director of Thomas Jefferson University’s Light Research Program. 

Our own galaxy is invisible to nearly 80% of people in North America. In 1994, an earthquake-triggered blackout in Los Angeles led to calls to the Griffith Observatory from people wondering about that hazy blob of light in the night sky. It was the Milky Way.

Glaring headlights, illuminated buildings, blazing billboards, and streetlights fill our urban skies with a glow that even affects rural residents. Inside, since the invention of the lightbulb, we’ve kept our homes bright at night. Now, we’ve also added blue light-emitting devices — smartphones, television screens, tablets — which have been linked to sleep problems.

But outdoor light may matter for our health, too. “Every photon counts,” Hanifin said. 
 

Bright Lights, Big Problems

For one 2024 study researchers used satellite data to measure light pollution at residential addresses of over 13,000 people. They found that those who lived in places with the brightest skies at night had a 31% higher risk of high blood pressure. Another study out of Hong Kong showed a 29% higher risk of death from coronary heart disease. And yet another found a 17%higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, such as strokes or brain aneurysms. 

Of course, urban areas also have air pollution, noise, and a lack of greenery. So, for some studies, scientists controlled for these factors, and the correlation remained strong (although air pollution with fine particulate matter appeared to be worse for heart health than outdoor light). 

Research has found links between the nighttime glow outside and other diseases:

Breast cancer. “It’s a very strong correlation,” said Randy Nelson, PhD, a neuroscientist at West Virginia University. A study of over 100,000 teachers in California revealed that women living in areas with the most light pollution had a 12%higher risk. That effect is comparable to increasing your intake of ultra-processed foods by 10%. 

Alzheimer’s disease. In a study published this fall, outdoor light at night was more strongly linked to the disease than even alcohol misuse or obesity.

Diabetes. In one recent study, people living in the most illuminated areas had a 28% higher risk of diabetes than those residing in much darker places. In a country like China, scientists concluded that 9 million cases of diabetes could be linked to light pollution. 
 

What Happens in Your Body When You’re Exposed to Light at Night

Research has revealed that light at night (indoors or out) disrupts circadian clocks, increases inflammation, affects cell division, and suppresses melatonin, the “hormone of darkness.” “Darkness is very important,” Hanifin said. When he and his colleagues decades ago started studying the effects of light on human physiology, “people thought we were borderline crazy,” he said.

Nighttime illumination affects the health and behavior of species as diverse as Siberian hamsters, zebra finches, mice, crickets, and mosquitoes. Like most creatures on Earth, humans have internal clocks that are synced to the 24-hour cycle of day and night. The master clock is in your hypothalamus, a diamond-shaped part of the brain, but every cell in your body has its own clock, too. Many physiological processes run on circadian rhythms (a term derived from a Latin phrase meaning “about a day”), from sleep-wake cycle to hormone secretion, as well as processes involved in cancer progression, such as cell division.

“There are special photoreceptors in the eye that don’t deal with visual information. They just send light information,” Nelson said. “If you get light at the wrong time, you’re resetting the clocks.” 

This internal clock “prepares the body for various recurrent challenges, such as eating,” said Christian Benedict, PhD, a sleep researcher at Uppsala University, Sweden. “Light exposure [at night] can mess up this very important system.” This could mean, for instance, that your insulin is released at the wrong time, Benedict said, causing “a jet lag-ish condition that will then impair the ability to handle blood sugar.” Animal studies confirm that exposure to light at night can reduce glucose tolerance and alter insulin secretion – potential pathways to diabetes.

The hormone melatonin, produced when it’s dark by the pineal gland in the brain, is a key player in this modern struggle. Melatonin helps you sleep, synchronizes the body’s circadian rhythms, protects neurons from damage, regulates the immune system, and fights inflammation. But even a sliver of light at night can suppress its secretion. Less than 30 lux of light, about the level of a pedestrian street at night, can slash melatonin by half. 

When lab animals are exposed to nighttime light, they “show enormous neuroinflammation” — that is, inflammation of nervous tissue, Nelson said. In one experiment on humans, those who slept immersed in weak light had higher levels of C-reactive protein in their blood, a marker of inflammation.

Low melatonin has also been linked to cancer. It “allows the metabolic machinery of the cancer cells to be active,” Hanifin said. One of melatonin’s effects is stimulation of natural killer cells, which can recognize and destroy cancer cells. What’s more, when melatonin plunges, estrogen may go up, which could explain the link between light at night and breast cancer (estrogen fuels tumor growth in breast cancers). 

Researchers concede that satellite data might be too coarse to estimate how much light people are actually exposed to while they sleep. Plus, many of us are staring at bright screens. “But the studies keep coming,” Nelson said, suggesting that outdoor light pollution does have an impact. 

When researchers put wrist-worn light sensors on over 80,000 British people, they found that the more light the device registered between half-past midnight and 6 a.m., the more its wearer was at risk of having diabetes several years down the road — no matter how long they’ve actually slept. This, according to the study’s authors, supports the findings of satellite data.

A similar study that used actigraphy with built-in light sensors, measuring whether people had been sleeping in complete darkness for at least five hours, found that light pollution upped the risk of heart disease by 74%.
 

What Can You Do About This?

Not everyone’s melatonin is affected by nighttime light to the same degree. “Some people are very much sensitive to very dim light, whereas others are not as sensitive and need far, far more light stimulation [to impact melatonin],” Benedict said. In one study, some volunteers needed 350 lux to lower their melatonin by half. For such people, flipping on the light in the bathroom at night wouldn’t matter; for others, though, a mere 6 lux was already as harmful – which is darker than twilight. 

You can protect yourself by keeping your bedroom lights off and your screens stashed away, but avoiding outdoor light pollution may be harder. You can invest in high-quality blackout curtains, of course, although some light may still seep inside. You can plant trees in front of your windows, reorient any motion-detector lights, and even petition your local government to reduce over-illumination of buildings and to choose better streetlights. You can support organizations, such as the International Dark-Sky Association, that work to preserve darkness.

Last but not least, you might want to change your habits. If you live in a particularly light-polluted area, such as the District of Columbia, America’s top place for urban blaze, you might reconsider late-night walks or drives around the neighborhood. Instead, Hanifin said, read a book in bed, while keeping the light “as dim as you can.” It’s “a much better idea versus being outside in midtown Manhattan,” he said. According to recent recommendations published by Hanifin and his colleagues, when you sleep, there should be no more than 1 lux of illumination at the level of your eyes — about as much as you’d get from having a lit candle 1 meter away. 

And if we manage to preserve outdoor darkness, and the stars reappear (including the breathtaking Milky Way), we could reap more benefits — some research suggests that stargazing can elicit positive emotions, a sense of personal growth, and “a variety of transcendent thoughts and experiences.” 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

This October, millions of Americans missed out on two of the most spectacular shows in the universe: the northern lights and a rare comet. Even if you were aware of them, light pollution made them difficult to see, unless you went to a dark area and let your eyes adjust.

It’s not getting any easier — the night sky over North America has been growing brighter by about 10% per year since 2011. More and more research is linking all that light pollution to a surprising range of health consequences: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and even low sperm quality, though the reasons for these troubling associations are not always clear. 

“We’ve lost the contrast between light and dark, and we are confusing our physiology on a regular basis,” said John Hanifin, PhD, associate director of Thomas Jefferson University’s Light Research Program. 

Our own galaxy is invisible to nearly 80% of people in North America. In 1994, an earthquake-triggered blackout in Los Angeles led to calls to the Griffith Observatory from people wondering about that hazy blob of light in the night sky. It was the Milky Way.

Glaring headlights, illuminated buildings, blazing billboards, and streetlights fill our urban skies with a glow that even affects rural residents. Inside, since the invention of the lightbulb, we’ve kept our homes bright at night. Now, we’ve also added blue light-emitting devices — smartphones, television screens, tablets — which have been linked to sleep problems.

But outdoor light may matter for our health, too. “Every photon counts,” Hanifin said. 
 

Bright Lights, Big Problems

For one 2024 study researchers used satellite data to measure light pollution at residential addresses of over 13,000 people. They found that those who lived in places with the brightest skies at night had a 31% higher risk of high blood pressure. Another study out of Hong Kong showed a 29% higher risk of death from coronary heart disease. And yet another found a 17%higher risk of cerebrovascular disease, such as strokes or brain aneurysms. 

Of course, urban areas also have air pollution, noise, and a lack of greenery. So, for some studies, scientists controlled for these factors, and the correlation remained strong (although air pollution with fine particulate matter appeared to be worse for heart health than outdoor light). 

Research has found links between the nighttime glow outside and other diseases:

Breast cancer. “It’s a very strong correlation,” said Randy Nelson, PhD, a neuroscientist at West Virginia University. A study of over 100,000 teachers in California revealed that women living in areas with the most light pollution had a 12%higher risk. That effect is comparable to increasing your intake of ultra-processed foods by 10%. 

Alzheimer’s disease. In a study published this fall, outdoor light at night was more strongly linked to the disease than even alcohol misuse or obesity.

Diabetes. In one recent study, people living in the most illuminated areas had a 28% higher risk of diabetes than those residing in much darker places. In a country like China, scientists concluded that 9 million cases of diabetes could be linked to light pollution. 
 

What Happens in Your Body When You’re Exposed to Light at Night

Research has revealed that light at night (indoors or out) disrupts circadian clocks, increases inflammation, affects cell division, and suppresses melatonin, the “hormone of darkness.” “Darkness is very important,” Hanifin said. When he and his colleagues decades ago started studying the effects of light on human physiology, “people thought we were borderline crazy,” he said.

Nighttime illumination affects the health and behavior of species as diverse as Siberian hamsters, zebra finches, mice, crickets, and mosquitoes. Like most creatures on Earth, humans have internal clocks that are synced to the 24-hour cycle of day and night. The master clock is in your hypothalamus, a diamond-shaped part of the brain, but every cell in your body has its own clock, too. Many physiological processes run on circadian rhythms (a term derived from a Latin phrase meaning “about a day”), from sleep-wake cycle to hormone secretion, as well as processes involved in cancer progression, such as cell division.

“There are special photoreceptors in the eye that don’t deal with visual information. They just send light information,” Nelson said. “If you get light at the wrong time, you’re resetting the clocks.” 

This internal clock “prepares the body for various recurrent challenges, such as eating,” said Christian Benedict, PhD, a sleep researcher at Uppsala University, Sweden. “Light exposure [at night] can mess up this very important system.” This could mean, for instance, that your insulin is released at the wrong time, Benedict said, causing “a jet lag-ish condition that will then impair the ability to handle blood sugar.” Animal studies confirm that exposure to light at night can reduce glucose tolerance and alter insulin secretion – potential pathways to diabetes.

The hormone melatonin, produced when it’s dark by the pineal gland in the brain, is a key player in this modern struggle. Melatonin helps you sleep, synchronizes the body’s circadian rhythms, protects neurons from damage, regulates the immune system, and fights inflammation. But even a sliver of light at night can suppress its secretion. Less than 30 lux of light, about the level of a pedestrian street at night, can slash melatonin by half. 

When lab animals are exposed to nighttime light, they “show enormous neuroinflammation” — that is, inflammation of nervous tissue, Nelson said. In one experiment on humans, those who slept immersed in weak light had higher levels of C-reactive protein in their blood, a marker of inflammation.

Low melatonin has also been linked to cancer. It “allows the metabolic machinery of the cancer cells to be active,” Hanifin said. One of melatonin’s effects is stimulation of natural killer cells, which can recognize and destroy cancer cells. What’s more, when melatonin plunges, estrogen may go up, which could explain the link between light at night and breast cancer (estrogen fuels tumor growth in breast cancers). 

Researchers concede that satellite data might be too coarse to estimate how much light people are actually exposed to while they sleep. Plus, many of us are staring at bright screens. “But the studies keep coming,” Nelson said, suggesting that outdoor light pollution does have an impact. 

When researchers put wrist-worn light sensors on over 80,000 British people, they found that the more light the device registered between half-past midnight and 6 a.m., the more its wearer was at risk of having diabetes several years down the road — no matter how long they’ve actually slept. This, according to the study’s authors, supports the findings of satellite data.

A similar study that used actigraphy with built-in light sensors, measuring whether people had been sleeping in complete darkness for at least five hours, found that light pollution upped the risk of heart disease by 74%.
 

What Can You Do About This?

Not everyone’s melatonin is affected by nighttime light to the same degree. “Some people are very much sensitive to very dim light, whereas others are not as sensitive and need far, far more light stimulation [to impact melatonin],” Benedict said. In one study, some volunteers needed 350 lux to lower their melatonin by half. For such people, flipping on the light in the bathroom at night wouldn’t matter; for others, though, a mere 6 lux was already as harmful – which is darker than twilight. 

You can protect yourself by keeping your bedroom lights off and your screens stashed away, but avoiding outdoor light pollution may be harder. You can invest in high-quality blackout curtains, of course, although some light may still seep inside. You can plant trees in front of your windows, reorient any motion-detector lights, and even petition your local government to reduce over-illumination of buildings and to choose better streetlights. You can support organizations, such as the International Dark-Sky Association, that work to preserve darkness.

Last but not least, you might want to change your habits. If you live in a particularly light-polluted area, such as the District of Columbia, America’s top place for urban blaze, you might reconsider late-night walks or drives around the neighborhood. Instead, Hanifin said, read a book in bed, while keeping the light “as dim as you can.” It’s “a much better idea versus being outside in midtown Manhattan,” he said. According to recent recommendations published by Hanifin and his colleagues, when you sleep, there should be no more than 1 lux of illumination at the level of your eyes — about as much as you’d get from having a lit candle 1 meter away. 

And if we manage to preserve outdoor darkness, and the stars reappear (including the breathtaking Milky Way), we could reap more benefits — some research suggests that stargazing can elicit positive emotions, a sense of personal growth, and “a variety of transcendent thoughts and experiences.” 
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

More than half of the US peer reviewers for four major medical journals received industry payments between 2020-2022, new research shows. Altogether they received more than $64 million in general, non-research payments, with a median payment per physician of $7614. Research payments — including money paid directly to physicians as well as funds related to research for which a physician was registered as a principal investigator — exceeded $1 billion.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified peer reviewers in 2022 for The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine using each journal’s list of reviewers for that year. They included 1962 US-based physicians in their analysis.
• General and research payments made to the peer reviewers between 2020-2022 were extracted from the Open Payments database.

TAKEAWAY:

• Nearly 59% of the peer reviewers received industry payments between 2020-2022.
• Payments included $34.31 million in consulting fees and $11.8 million for speaking compensation unrelated to continuing medical education programs.
• Male reviewers received a significantly higher median total payment than did female reviewers ($38,959 vs $19,586). General payments were higher for men as well ($8663 vs $4183).
• For comparison, the median general payment to all physicians in 2018 was $216, the researchers noted.

IN PRACTICE:

“Additional research and transparency regarding industry payments in the peer review process are needed,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

Christopher J. D. Wallis, MD, PhD, with the division of urology at the University of Toronto, Canada, was the corresponding author for the study. The article was published online October 10 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS: 

Whether the financial ties were relevant to any of the papers that the peer reviewers critiqued is not known. Some reviewers might have received additional payments from insurance and technology companies that were not captured in this study. The findings might not apply to other journals, the researchers noted. 

DISCLOSURES:

Wallis disclosed personal fees from Janssen Oncology, Nanostics, Precision Point Specialty, Sesen Bio, AbbVie, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, EMD Serono, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Science and Medicine Canada, TerSera, and Tolmar. He and some coauthors also disclosed support and grants from foundations and government institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.