Cardiology News

PHOENIX — Adding either argatroban or eptifibatide to thrombolytic therapy doesn’t improve function following an ischemic stroke, results of new research show. 

“Ultimately, we found no benefit for either medication added to standard-of-care thrombolysis in terms of improving stroke outcomes,” said lead study author Opeolu M. Adeoye, MD, professor of emergency medicine and department chair, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 

The results were surprising and disappointing for Dr. Adeoye. “We went into the trial hopeful and thinking we would be able to benefit patients in reducing disability from stroke,” he said. 

The Multi-Arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) trial was stopped early because of futility following recommendations from the data and safety monitoring board.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

A thrombolytic drug alone doesn’t help all patients, particularly those with larger clots. “Clots can open; they can reform; they can re-occlude, etc.,” said another author, Andrew D. Barreto, MD, associate professor, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The thought was that adding additional medications that thin the blood, like argatroban or eptifibatide, would amplify the effects of the clot-busting drug.” 

Indeed, this approach has had success in cardiology in terms of blood vessel opening, said Dr. Adeoye, adding that some preclinical data suggest that antithrombotic drugs may be neuroprotective. 

Six phase 2 studies going back over a dozen years suggested that these drugs are safe in stroke patients. Although these studies weren’t powered for efficacy, “we did see a signal that adding them would be better than just the clot-busting drug alone.” These findings prompted the current phase 3 trial, said Dr. Barreto. 

The three-arm, single-blind MOST trial included 514 adult patients with acute ischemic stroke and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 6 or greater at 57 US centers. In the study cohort the mean age was about 68 years, 70% White/25% Black, and with about equal numbers of female and male patients.

All received standard stroke care including thrombolysis within 3 hours of symptom onset. Initially, researchers used intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg), but as the standard of care changed over time, they began using tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg).

Study patients were also randomly assigned to receive placebo or either argatroban (100 mcg/kg bolus followed by 3 mcg/kg per minute for 12 hours) or eptifibatide (135 mcg/kg bolus followed by 0.75 mcg/kg/min infusion for 2 hours). These treatments were initiated within 75 minutes of thrombolysis.
 

Two Different Mechanisms

The drugs have different mechanisms of action. Argatroban is an anticoagulant, a direct inhibitor of thrombin, while the antiplatelet eptifibatide blocks the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor and was specifically developed to ensure rapid inhibition of platelet aggregation.

Patients could also receive endovascular thrombectomy as part of their usual care. In this study, about 44% of patients received this treatment.

The primary endpoint was 90-day utility weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS) scores, where the worst outcome is 0 and the best outcome is 10.

The study used a response-adaptive randomization design, where the randomization switches from a drug that doesn’t appear to have a chance of working to the arm more likely to be beneficial. 

Of the 514 patients, the analysis included 228 in the placebo, 59 in the argatroban, and 227 in eptifibatide groups. Of the total, 421 completed the study. 

The mean 90-day uw-mRS was 6.8 in the placebo group, 5.2 in the argatroban group, and 6.3 in the eptifibatide group.

The probability of argatroban being better than placebo was 0.2%; the probability of eptifibatide being better than placebo was 0.9%. The futility threshold was enrollment of 500 and less than a 20% chance of benefit, thus the decision to stop the trial. 

In all subgroup analyses, which looked at age, stroke severity, the two thrombolytic drugs, and use of endovascular therapy, “we didn’t really see much of a signal that would suggest that’s the group we would need to be testing further,” said Dr. Barreto. 
 

No Increased ICH Risk

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours of randomization. The researchers found no significant increase in rates of this outcome.

The argatroban cohort had significantly lower odds of favorable outcomes compared with placebo, noted Dr. Adeoye. For example, it had more all-cause deaths, although none were related to the study drug. 

Speculating on why the intervention didn’t work, Dr. Barreto pointed to changes in standard of care between the earlier trials and the current one, including the incorporation of endovascular therapy and switch to tenecteplase. 

Although the results were disappointing, Dr. Adeoye sees a bright side. “What we’re very proud of, and excited about, is the fact that we have a definitive answer on these two drugs, and we did it in one trial as opposed to sequential, separate ongoing trials.” 

But he stressed that more work needs to be done, especially given that even with endovascular therapy, half of stroke patients don’t achieve independence. 

“In this trial, we established that argatroban and eptifibatide added to thrombolysis did not work, but that doesn’t address the fact that we need to continue to see what we can do to improve the total proportion of stroke patients who, after our treatments, are functionally independent 90 days after the stroke.” 
 

Down the Rabbit Hole

Commenting on the research, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, praised the study’s adaptive design, noted that the hypothesis the study was based on was “reasonable” given the concern about additional thromboses, and found the results useful. 

“The goal is not only to see what works but also what doesn’t work so we don’t go down that rabbit hole.” 

He also pointed out that because the two blood-thinning drugs studied have very different mechanisms of action, it’s unlikely that another antithrombotic would add benefit to thrombolysis, “but you never say never.” 

Dr. Adeoye and Dr. Barreto report research funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Adeoye also reports an executive role, receiving royalties/being a patent beneficiary, Sense Diagnostics, Inc. Dr. Goldstein has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Adding either argatroban or eptifibatide to thrombolytic therapy doesn’t improve function following an ischemic stroke, results of new research show. 

“Ultimately, we found no benefit for either medication added to standard-of-care thrombolysis in terms of improving stroke outcomes,” said lead study author Opeolu M. Adeoye, MD, professor of emergency medicine and department chair, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 

The results were surprising and disappointing for Dr. Adeoye. “We went into the trial hopeful and thinking we would be able to benefit patients in reducing disability from stroke,” he said. 

The Multi-Arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) trial was stopped early because of futility following recommendations from the data and safety monitoring board.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

A thrombolytic drug alone doesn’t help all patients, particularly those with larger clots. “Clots can open; they can reform; they can re-occlude, etc.,” said another author, Andrew D. Barreto, MD, associate professor, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The thought was that adding additional medications that thin the blood, like argatroban or eptifibatide, would amplify the effects of the clot-busting drug.” 

Indeed, this approach has had success in cardiology in terms of blood vessel opening, said Dr. Adeoye, adding that some preclinical data suggest that antithrombotic drugs may be neuroprotective. 

Six phase 2 studies going back over a dozen years suggested that these drugs are safe in stroke patients. Although these studies weren’t powered for efficacy, “we did see a signal that adding them would be better than just the clot-busting drug alone.” These findings prompted the current phase 3 trial, said Dr. Barreto. 

The three-arm, single-blind MOST trial included 514 adult patients with acute ischemic stroke and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 6 or greater at 57 US centers. In the study cohort the mean age was about 68 years, 70% White/25% Black, and with about equal numbers of female and male patients.

All received standard stroke care including thrombolysis within 3 hours of symptom onset. Initially, researchers used intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg), but as the standard of care changed over time, they began using tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg).

Study patients were also randomly assigned to receive placebo or either argatroban (100 mcg/kg bolus followed by 3 mcg/kg per minute for 12 hours) or eptifibatide (135 mcg/kg bolus followed by 0.75 mcg/kg/min infusion for 2 hours). These treatments were initiated within 75 minutes of thrombolysis.
 

Two Different Mechanisms

The drugs have different mechanisms of action. Argatroban is an anticoagulant, a direct inhibitor of thrombin, while the antiplatelet eptifibatide blocks the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor and was specifically developed to ensure rapid inhibition of platelet aggregation.

Patients could also receive endovascular thrombectomy as part of their usual care. In this study, about 44% of patients received this treatment.

The primary endpoint was 90-day utility weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS) scores, where the worst outcome is 0 and the best outcome is 10.

The study used a response-adaptive randomization design, where the randomization switches from a drug that doesn’t appear to have a chance of working to the arm more likely to be beneficial. 

Of the 514 patients, the analysis included 228 in the placebo, 59 in the argatroban, and 227 in eptifibatide groups. Of the total, 421 completed the study. 

The mean 90-day uw-mRS was 6.8 in the placebo group, 5.2 in the argatroban group, and 6.3 in the eptifibatide group.

The probability of argatroban being better than placebo was 0.2%; the probability of eptifibatide being better than placebo was 0.9%. The futility threshold was enrollment of 500 and less than a 20% chance of benefit, thus the decision to stop the trial. 

In all subgroup analyses, which looked at age, stroke severity, the two thrombolytic drugs, and use of endovascular therapy, “we didn’t really see much of a signal that would suggest that’s the group we would need to be testing further,” said Dr. Barreto. 
 

No Increased ICH Risk

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours of randomization. The researchers found no significant increase in rates of this outcome.

The argatroban cohort had significantly lower odds of favorable outcomes compared with placebo, noted Dr. Adeoye. For example, it had more all-cause deaths, although none were related to the study drug. 

Speculating on why the intervention didn’t work, Dr. Barreto pointed to changes in standard of care between the earlier trials and the current one, including the incorporation of endovascular therapy and switch to tenecteplase. 

Although the results were disappointing, Dr. Adeoye sees a bright side. “What we’re very proud of, and excited about, is the fact that we have a definitive answer on these two drugs, and we did it in one trial as opposed to sequential, separate ongoing trials.” 

But he stressed that more work needs to be done, especially given that even with endovascular therapy, half of stroke patients don’t achieve independence. 

“In this trial, we established that argatroban and eptifibatide added to thrombolysis did not work, but that doesn’t address the fact that we need to continue to see what we can do to improve the total proportion of stroke patients who, after our treatments, are functionally independent 90 days after the stroke.” 
 

Down the Rabbit Hole

Commenting on the research, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, praised the study’s adaptive design, noted that the hypothesis the study was based on was “reasonable” given the concern about additional thromboses, and found the results useful. 

“The goal is not only to see what works but also what doesn’t work so we don’t go down that rabbit hole.” 

He also pointed out that because the two blood-thinning drugs studied have very different mechanisms of action, it’s unlikely that another antithrombotic would add benefit to thrombolysis, “but you never say never.” 

Dr. Adeoye and Dr. Barreto report research funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Adeoye also reports an executive role, receiving royalties/being a patent beneficiary, Sense Diagnostics, Inc. Dr. Goldstein has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Adding either argatroban or eptifibatide to thrombolytic therapy doesn’t improve function following an ischemic stroke, results of new research show. 

“Ultimately, we found no benefit for either medication added to standard-of-care thrombolysis in terms of improving stroke outcomes,” said lead study author Opeolu M. Adeoye, MD, professor of emergency medicine and department chair, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 

The results were surprising and disappointing for Dr. Adeoye. “We went into the trial hopeful and thinking we would be able to benefit patients in reducing disability from stroke,” he said. 

The Multi-Arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis (MOST) trial was stopped early because of futility following recommendations from the data and safety monitoring board.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

A thrombolytic drug alone doesn’t help all patients, particularly those with larger clots. “Clots can open; they can reform; they can re-occlude, etc.,” said another author, Andrew D. Barreto, MD, associate professor, Department of Neurology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston. “The thought was that adding additional medications that thin the blood, like argatroban or eptifibatide, would amplify the effects of the clot-busting drug.” 

Indeed, this approach has had success in cardiology in terms of blood vessel opening, said Dr. Adeoye, adding that some preclinical data suggest that antithrombotic drugs may be neuroprotective. 

Six phase 2 studies going back over a dozen years suggested that these drugs are safe in stroke patients. Although these studies weren’t powered for efficacy, “we did see a signal that adding them would be better than just the clot-busting drug alone.” These findings prompted the current phase 3 trial, said Dr. Barreto. 

The three-arm, single-blind MOST trial included 514 adult patients with acute ischemic stroke and a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 6 or greater at 57 US centers. In the study cohort the mean age was about 68 years, 70% White/25% Black, and with about equal numbers of female and male patients.

All received standard stroke care including thrombolysis within 3 hours of symptom onset. Initially, researchers used intravenous alteplase (0.9 mg/kg), but as the standard of care changed over time, they began using tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg).

Study patients were also randomly assigned to receive placebo or either argatroban (100 mcg/kg bolus followed by 3 mcg/kg per minute for 12 hours) or eptifibatide (135 mcg/kg bolus followed by 0.75 mcg/kg/min infusion for 2 hours). These treatments were initiated within 75 minutes of thrombolysis.
 

Two Different Mechanisms

The drugs have different mechanisms of action. Argatroban is an anticoagulant, a direct inhibitor of thrombin, while the antiplatelet eptifibatide blocks the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor and was specifically developed to ensure rapid inhibition of platelet aggregation.

Patients could also receive endovascular thrombectomy as part of their usual care. In this study, about 44% of patients received this treatment.

The primary endpoint was 90-day utility weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS) scores, where the worst outcome is 0 and the best outcome is 10.

The study used a response-adaptive randomization design, where the randomization switches from a drug that doesn’t appear to have a chance of working to the arm more likely to be beneficial. 

Of the 514 patients, the analysis included 228 in the placebo, 59 in the argatroban, and 227 in eptifibatide groups. Of the total, 421 completed the study. 

The mean 90-day uw-mRS was 6.8 in the placebo group, 5.2 in the argatroban group, and 6.3 in the eptifibatide group.

The probability of argatroban being better than placebo was 0.2%; the probability of eptifibatide being better than placebo was 0.9%. The futility threshold was enrollment of 500 and less than a 20% chance of benefit, thus the decision to stop the trial. 

In all subgroup analyses, which looked at age, stroke severity, the two thrombolytic drugs, and use of endovascular therapy, “we didn’t really see much of a signal that would suggest that’s the group we would need to be testing further,” said Dr. Barreto. 
 

No Increased ICH Risk

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours of randomization. The researchers found no significant increase in rates of this outcome.

The argatroban cohort had significantly lower odds of favorable outcomes compared with placebo, noted Dr. Adeoye. For example, it had more all-cause deaths, although none were related to the study drug. 

Speculating on why the intervention didn’t work, Dr. Barreto pointed to changes in standard of care between the earlier trials and the current one, including the incorporation of endovascular therapy and switch to tenecteplase. 

Although the results were disappointing, Dr. Adeoye sees a bright side. “What we’re very proud of, and excited about, is the fact that we have a definitive answer on these two drugs, and we did it in one trial as opposed to sequential, separate ongoing trials.” 

But he stressed that more work needs to be done, especially given that even with endovascular therapy, half of stroke patients don’t achieve independence. 

“In this trial, we established that argatroban and eptifibatide added to thrombolysis did not work, but that doesn’t address the fact that we need to continue to see what we can do to improve the total proportion of stroke patients who, after our treatments, are functionally independent 90 days after the stroke.” 
 

Down the Rabbit Hole

Commenting on the research, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair, Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, praised the study’s adaptive design, noted that the hypothesis the study was based on was “reasonable” given the concern about additional thromboses, and found the results useful. 

“The goal is not only to see what works but also what doesn’t work so we don’t go down that rabbit hole.” 

He also pointed out that because the two blood-thinning drugs studied have very different mechanisms of action, it’s unlikely that another antithrombotic would add benefit to thrombolysis, “but you never say never.” 

Dr. Adeoye and Dr. Barreto report research funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Adeoye also reports an executive role, receiving royalties/being a patent beneficiary, Sense Diagnostics, Inc. Dr. Goldstein has no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Thrombectomy is generally beneficial for patients from a low-income population who have a large vessel occlusion stroke presenting in the later time window and who can be identified as suitable for treatment without the need for advanced and costly imaging, a new Brazilian trial has shown.

“The RESILIENT-Extend trial is the first major study of thrombectomy in the late time window (8-24 h) conducted outside first-world countries and shows the procedure also has benefit in a lower socioeconomic status population without the need for costly imaging equipment,” said lead investigator Raul G. Nogueira, MD. 

“The trial expands the treatment window for thrombectomy globally with simplified selection criteria based on non-contrast CT, potentially altering current guidelines,” Dr. Nogueira said.

However, there were some caveats that need to be considered; in particular, a lack of benefit with thrombectomy in older patients (over 68 years of age), which Dr. Nogueira believes is a reflection of the particular population enrolled in this study. Specifically, he suggested that older age in this low socioeconomic status population is a surrogate for frailty, and the study may have identified frailty as a factor that correlates with reduced or lack of benefit of thrombectomy.

Dr. Nogueira, who is a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sheila Martins, MD, a professor of neurology at Hospital de Clinicas Porto Alegre in Brazil, presented the RESILIENT-Extend results at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Nogueira explained that the lack of available advanced imaging techniques is a major challenge for implementing endovascular therapy in an extended time window, especially in lower-income countries.

“Our main objective was to see if we could remove the need for advanced imaging to select patients with large vessel occlusion stroke in the late time window (8-24 h) for thrombectomy,” he said. “In this way, our trial overlaps somewhat with the MR CLEAN-LATE Trial conducted in the Netherlands, although the two trials were conducted in very different socioeconomic populations.”

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was conducted in the public health service of Brazil and involved a different population of people than have been included in other thrombectomy trials, which have mostly been conducted in first-world countries.

“The public health system in Brazil is not well-resourced and tends to care for patients at lower socioeconomic levels. These patients are fundamentally different from the average patients in the first-world recruited into most other thrombectomy trials,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

The trial enrolled 245 patients with a large vessel occlusion stroke within 8-24 hours of last known well. Patients were included who had a mismatch between the clinical severity as shown by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score and the stroke burden on imaging as measured by ASPECTS scores.

They had to have relatively high NIHSS scores (8 or more) showing more severe strokes but also a high ASPECTS score (5-10) excluding patients with large areas of ischemic brain. There was also a sliding scale that adjusted for age to avoid enrolling elderly patients with large strokes.

These patients were identified exclusively using non-contrast CT and CT angiography imaging.

The median age of patients included was 62-63 years. Dr. Nogueira pointed out that patients were slightly younger than seen in other thrombectomy trials, perhaps because in lower-middle-income countries strokes occur at a younger age. They also have a higher case fatality rate.

The median baseline NIHSS score was 16, and the median ASPECTS score was 7-8.

The median time to treatment was 12.5 hours, which is similar to other late window thrombectomy trials.
 

Conflicting Results on Shift Analysis

The primary outcome was a shift analysis of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) disability score at 90 days.

This showed a bidirectional result, with thrombectomy increasing the chances of a good or excellent outcome (mRS, 0-3), but there was also a nonsignificant increased risk for a bad outcome (mRS, 5-6).

“This bidirectional result prevents a common odds ratio from being calculated, so the primary endpoint is not applicable,” Dr. Nogueira reported.

The researchers therefore used the secondary outcomes as the main results of the study.

These showed that the number of patients achieving a good outcome (mRS, 0-2) was significantly increased with thrombectomy (25% vs. 14%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.56; P = .012).

The number of patients achieving an excellent outcome (mRS, 0-1) was also significantly increased.

But these increases in good outcomes came at the cost of some patients having an increased risk for severe disability or death (mRS, 5-6).

The odds ratio for an mRS of 0-4 versus 5-6 was 0.71, and for an mRS of 0-5 versus 6, the odds ratio was 0.58. Both these results were nonsignificant.

Another anomaly in the RESILIENT-Extend trial was the observation of no benefit of thrombectomy seen in older patients.

“In general, trials of thrombectomy in the first world have shown a greater treatment effect in older patients, but this was not seen in our trial, where older patients (over 68 years) did not derive any benefit from the procedure,” Dr. Nogueira noted.

A similar observation was also seen in the first RESILIENT trial in patients treated within 8 hours of stroke onset, which was also conducted in Brazil, leading to the suggestion that it is related to the patient population included.

“In the Brazilian public health service, older patients are very vulnerable and frail. They are different to older patients in first world countries. It appears they may be too fragile to withstand the thrombectomy process,” Dr. Nogueira said.
 

Frailty: A Ceiling Effect?

Results from the two RESILIENT trials give a word of caution to the thrombectomy field, Dr. Nogueira said.

“This procedure was initially thought suitable only for patients with small core strokes, but we now have a series of trials showing benefit of thrombectomy in large core strokes as well,” Dr. Nogueira said. “We have started to believe that this intervention will benefit almost all patients with large vessel occlusion stroke everywhere around the world, but our data suggest that we have to consider the specific populations that we are serving and that factors such as socioeconomic status and frailty have to be taken into account.

“Both the RESILIENT trials have shown that thrombectomy does not appear to be suitable for older patients, over 68-70 years of age, in the public health service in Brazil,” he noted. “In this population, a patient aged 70 can be quite different to a patient of the same age in a first-world country. I think in our population, an age of over 68-70 is a surrogate for frailty, which will not be the case in first-world countries. In this regard, I think we have found a ceiling effect for benefit of thrombectomy, which is frailty.”

Dr. Nogueira speculated that the bidirectional effect on the mRS shift analysis may also have been caused by the frailty of some of the patients.

“What the results may be showing is that for most of the population, there is a benefit of thrombectomy, but for some patients, possibly the most frail, then the procedure can be too overwhelming for them. But the suggestion of harm was not significant, so this observation could have also just been the play of chance,” he added.
 

Interpreting the Findings

Commenting on the RESILIENT-Extend study results, Michael Hill, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Calgary, Canada, pointed out that there was an absolute benefit of 11.1% on the mRS of 0-2 outcome but a similar signal of harm, with a 10.2% increase in mortality in the thrombectomy group, although that was not statistically significant.

“This signal of harm appears not to be due to an increase in intracranial hemorrhage or procedural mishap,” he said. “It is unclear why there were more deaths; the overall trial numbers are small enough that this could be a chance finding.”

Dr. Hill also noted that the absolute proportion of patients achieving an independent functional outcome was 50% less than in the DAWN trial of thrombectomy in the extended window. “This tells us that the patients selected for inclusion into RESILIENT-Extend were physiologically different from those in DAWN,” he said.

Also commenting on the study, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center–Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said: “The RESILIENT-Extend investigators should be congratulated for the successful conduct of the trial and providing evidence of benefit of thrombectomy procedure with simplified neuroimaging protocol using CT and CTA in resource-limited settings. These findings will help support extending the access to thrombectomy in areas without availability of advanced imaging.”

He said the bidirectional effect on the primary endpoint and the positive interaction between age and thrombectomy treatment effect warranted further investigation.

The RESILIENT-Extend trial was sponsored by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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.

Poor communication between physician and patient can cause a lot of harm, according to Joseph N. Cappella, PhD, Gerald R. Miller Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Richard N. Street Jr, PhD, professor of communication and media science at Texas A&M University in Houston, Texas. When a physician and patient talk past each other, it may impair the patient’s compliance with preventive measures, screening, and treatment; undermine the physician-patient relationship; exacerbate fears and concerns; and possibly lead patients to rely on misleading, incomplete, or simply incorrect information, turning away from evidence-based medicine.

Drs. Cappella and Street made these points in an essay recently published in JAMA. The essay marks the beginning of the JAMA series Communicating Medicine.

“Helping clinicians deliver accurate information more effectively can lead to better-informed patients,” wrote Anne R. Cappola, MD, professor of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at the University of Pennsylvania, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. Drs. Cappola and Bibbins-Domingo also are editors of JAMA.

To establish a common understanding between physician and patient, Drs. Cappella and Street identified the following four responsibilities of the physician:

• Discover what the patient understands and why
• Provide accurate information in an understandable manner
• Promote the credibility of the information
• Verify whether the patient has understood.

“Research has shown that although medical facts need to be the basis for the clinician’s core message, those facts are more effectively communicated in a patient-clinician relationship characterized by trust and cooperation and when the information is presented in a manner that fosters patient understanding,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. This approach includes using interpreters for patients who do not fluently speak the physician’s language and supplementing explanations with simple written information, images, and videos.

Patients generally believe their physician’s information, and most patients view their physicians as a trustworthy source. Trust is based on the belief that the physician has the patient’s best interests at heart.

However, patients may be distrustful of their physician’s information if it contradicts their own belief system or personal experiences or because they inherently distrust the medical profession.

In addition, patients are less willing to accept explanations and recommendations if they feel misunderstood, judged, discriminated against, or rushed by the physician. The basis for effective communication is a relationship with patients that is built on trust and respect. Empirically supported strategies for expressing respect and building trust include the following:

• Affirming the patient’s values
• Anticipating and addressing false or misleading information
• Using simple, jargon-free language
• Embedding facts into a story, rather than presenting the scientific evidence dryly.

“Conveying factual material using these techniques makes facts more engaging and memorable,” wrote Drs. Cappella and Street. It is crucial to inquire about and consider the patient’s perspective, health beliefs, assumptions, concerns, needs, and stories in the conversation.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition 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:

Two breakdown products from excess niacin, called 2PY and 4PY, were strongly associated with myocardial infarction, stroke, and other adverse cardiac events, suggesting that niacin supplementation may require a more “nuanced, titrated approach,” researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators performed an untargeted metabolomics analysis of fasting plasma from stable cardiac patients in a prospective discovery cohort of 1162 individuals (36% women).
• Additional analyses were performed in a US validation cohort, including measurement of soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), and on archival fasting samples from patients in a European validation cohort undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography.
• Genetic analyses of samples from the UK Biobank were used to test the association with sVCAM-1 levels of a genetic variant, rs10496731, which was significantly associated with both N1-methyl-2-pyridone-5-carboxamide (2 PY) and N1-methyl-4-pyridone-3-carboxamide (4PY) levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• Niacin metabolism was associated with incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• Plasma levels of the terminal metabolites of excess niacin, 2PY and 4PY, were associated with increased 3-year MACE risk in two validation cohorts (US: 2331 total, 33% women; European: 832 total, 30% women), with adjusted hazard ratios for 2PY of 1.64 and 2.02, respectively, and for 4PY, 1.89 and 1.99.
• The genetic variant rs10496731 was significantly associated with levels of sVCAM-1.
• Treatment with physiological levels of 4PY, but not 2PY, induced expression of VCAM-1 and leukocyte adherence to vascular endothelium in mice, suggesting an inflammation-dependent mechanism underlying the clinical association of 4PY, in particular, with MACE.
• In functional testing, a physiological level of 4PY, but not 2PY, provoked messenger RNA and protein expression of VCAM-1 on human endothelial cells.

IN PRACTICE:

“Total niacin consumption in the US averaged 48 mg/d from 2017 to 2020 — more than triple the Recommended Daily Allowance — and 2PY and 4PY were also increased by nicotinamideriboside and nicotinamide mononucleotide, both of which are commonly sold supplements with claimed antiaging benefits,” the authors noted.

“The present studies suggest that niacin pool supplementation may optimally require a more nuanced, titrated approach to achieve intended health benefits,” while not fostering excess 4PY generation.

SOURCE:

Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, was the principal author of the study, published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Measurement of 2PY and 4PY in the validation cohorts was performed only once, whereas serial measures might have provided enhanced prognostic value for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks. Cohorts were recruited at quaternary referral centers and showed a high prevalence of CVD and cardiometabolic disease risk factors. Although the meta-analysis of the community-based genomic (Biobank) studies showed a link between 4PY and VCAM-1 expression in multiple ethnic groups, the clinical studies linking 4PY to CVD events were based on high-risk European ancestry populations in the US and European cohorts.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH; both the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Office of Dietary Supplements: A), Pilot Project Programs of the USC Center for Genetic Epidemiology and Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. One co-author was supported, in part, by NIH training grants; another was a participant in the BIH-Charité Advanced Clinician Scientist Program funded by Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the Berlin Institute of Health. The LipidCardio study [validation cohort] was partially supported by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. The UK Biobank Resource provided access to their data. Dr. Hazen and a co-author reported being coinventors on pending and issued patents held by the Cleveland Clinic relating to cardiovascular diagnostics and therapeutics, and Dr. Hazen and two co-authors received funds from industry.

A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Two breakdown products from excess niacin, called 2PY and 4PY, were strongly associated with myocardial infarction, stroke, and other adverse cardiac events, suggesting that niacin supplementation may require a more “nuanced, titrated approach,” researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators performed an untargeted metabolomics analysis of fasting plasma from stable cardiac patients in a prospective discovery cohort of 1162 individuals (36% women).
• Additional analyses were performed in a US validation cohort, including measurement of soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), and on archival fasting samples from patients in a European validation cohort undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography.
• Genetic analyses of samples from the UK Biobank were used to test the association with sVCAM-1 levels of a genetic variant, rs10496731, which was significantly associated with both N1-methyl-2-pyridone-5-carboxamide (2 PY) and N1-methyl-4-pyridone-3-carboxamide (4PY) levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• Niacin metabolism was associated with incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• Plasma levels of the terminal metabolites of excess niacin, 2PY and 4PY, were associated with increased 3-year MACE risk in two validation cohorts (US: 2331 total, 33% women; European: 832 total, 30% women), with adjusted hazard ratios for 2PY of 1.64 and 2.02, respectively, and for 4PY, 1.89 and 1.99.
• The genetic variant rs10496731 was significantly associated with levels of sVCAM-1.
• Treatment with physiological levels of 4PY, but not 2PY, induced expression of VCAM-1 and leukocyte adherence to vascular endothelium in mice, suggesting an inflammation-dependent mechanism underlying the clinical association of 4PY, in particular, with MACE.
• In functional testing, a physiological level of 4PY, but not 2PY, provoked messenger RNA and protein expression of VCAM-1 on human endothelial cells.

IN PRACTICE:

“Total niacin consumption in the US averaged 48 mg/d from 2017 to 2020 — more than triple the Recommended Daily Allowance — and 2PY and 4PY were also increased by nicotinamideriboside and nicotinamide mononucleotide, both of which are commonly sold supplements with claimed antiaging benefits,” the authors noted.

“The present studies suggest that niacin pool supplementation may optimally require a more nuanced, titrated approach to achieve intended health benefits,” while not fostering excess 4PY generation.

SOURCE:

Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, was the principal author of the study, published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Measurement of 2PY and 4PY in the validation cohorts was performed only once, whereas serial measures might have provided enhanced prognostic value for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks. Cohorts were recruited at quaternary referral centers and showed a high prevalence of CVD and cardiometabolic disease risk factors. Although the meta-analysis of the community-based genomic (Biobank) studies showed a link between 4PY and VCAM-1 expression in multiple ethnic groups, the clinical studies linking 4PY to CVD events were based on high-risk European ancestry populations in the US and European cohorts.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH; both the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Office of Dietary Supplements: A), Pilot Project Programs of the USC Center for Genetic Epidemiology and Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. One co-author was supported, in part, by NIH training grants; another was a participant in the BIH-Charité Advanced Clinician Scientist Program funded by Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the Berlin Institute of Health. The LipidCardio study [validation cohort] was partially supported by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. The UK Biobank Resource provided access to their data. Dr. Hazen and a co-author reported being coinventors on pending and issued patents held by the Cleveland Clinic relating to cardiovascular diagnostics and therapeutics, and Dr. Hazen and two co-authors received funds from industry.

A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Two breakdown products from excess niacin, called 2PY and 4PY, were strongly associated with myocardial infarction, stroke, and other adverse cardiac events, suggesting that niacin supplementation may require a more “nuanced, titrated approach,” researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators performed an untargeted metabolomics analysis of fasting plasma from stable cardiac patients in a prospective discovery cohort of 1162 individuals (36% women).
• Additional analyses were performed in a US validation cohort, including measurement of soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), and on archival fasting samples from patients in a European validation cohort undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography.
• Genetic analyses of samples from the UK Biobank were used to test the association with sVCAM-1 levels of a genetic variant, rs10496731, which was significantly associated with both N1-methyl-2-pyridone-5-carboxamide (2 PY) and N1-methyl-4-pyridone-3-carboxamide (4PY) levels.

TAKEAWAY:

• Niacin metabolism was associated with incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
• Plasma levels of the terminal metabolites of excess niacin, 2PY and 4PY, were associated with increased 3-year MACE risk in two validation cohorts (US: 2331 total, 33% women; European: 832 total, 30% women), with adjusted hazard ratios for 2PY of 1.64 and 2.02, respectively, and for 4PY, 1.89 and 1.99.
• The genetic variant rs10496731 was significantly associated with levels of sVCAM-1.
• Treatment with physiological levels of 4PY, but not 2PY, induced expression of VCAM-1 and leukocyte adherence to vascular endothelium in mice, suggesting an inflammation-dependent mechanism underlying the clinical association of 4PY, in particular, with MACE.
• In functional testing, a physiological level of 4PY, but not 2PY, provoked messenger RNA and protein expression of VCAM-1 on human endothelial cells.

IN PRACTICE:

“Total niacin consumption in the US averaged 48 mg/d from 2017 to 2020 — more than triple the Recommended Daily Allowance — and 2PY and 4PY were also increased by nicotinamideriboside and nicotinamide mononucleotide, both of which are commonly sold supplements with claimed antiaging benefits,” the authors noted.

“The present studies suggest that niacin pool supplementation may optimally require a more nuanced, titrated approach to achieve intended health benefits,” while not fostering excess 4PY generation.

SOURCE:

Stanley Hazen, MD, PhD, of Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, was the principal author of the study, published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Measurement of 2PY and 4PY in the validation cohorts was performed only once, whereas serial measures might have provided enhanced prognostic value for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks. Cohorts were recruited at quaternary referral centers and showed a high prevalence of CVD and cardiometabolic disease risk factors. Although the meta-analysis of the community-based genomic (Biobank) studies showed a link between 4PY and VCAM-1 expression in multiple ethnic groups, the clinical studies linking 4PY to CVD events were based on high-risk European ancestry populations in the US and European cohorts.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH; both the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Office of Dietary Supplements: A), Pilot Project Programs of the USC Center for Genetic Epidemiology and Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. One co-author was supported, in part, by NIH training grants; another was a participant in the BIH-Charité Advanced Clinician Scientist Program funded by Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin and the Berlin Institute of Health. The LipidCardio study [validation cohort] was partially supported by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. The UK Biobank Resource provided access to their data. Dr. Hazen and a co-author reported being coinventors on pending and issued patents held by the Cleveland Clinic relating to cardiovascular diagnostics and therapeutics, and Dr. Hazen and two co-authors received funds from industry.

A version of the article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Black women who develop high blood pressure before age 35 have a threefold increased risk of having a midlife stroke, new observational data suggest. The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.

“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” said the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers, and looking after family.”

Dr. Aparicio presented the data at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.

“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
 

A Large Study Cohort

The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study; the baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.

Both history of hypertension — defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication — and stroke occurrence were determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.

At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.

Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in the Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.

The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).

“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”

He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.

“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.

“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
 

The Role of Psychosocial Stressors

Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.

She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.

This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.

“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.

“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.

The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A significant quantity of dysfunctional monocytes appears to indicate poor cardiovascular prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new publication. Nicolas Venteclef, PhD, director of an Inserm institute for diabetes research at Necker Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, France, led the research.

Quantifying Inflammation

Patients with type 2 diabetes have about twice the risk for a cardiovascular event associated with atherosclerosis, such as a heart attack or stroke, during their lifetimes. “Predicting these complications in diabetic patients is usually very difficult,” Dr. Venteclef told this news organization.

“They are strongly associated with inflammation in these patients. Therefore, we sought to quantify this inflammation in the blood.” To do this, his team focused on monocytes, a category of white blood cells circulating in the blood. They measured the blood concentration of monocytes and the subtypes present in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The results were published in Circulation Research.
 

Dysfunctional Monocytes

The team worked with three cohorts of patients. The first, named AngioSafe-2, consisting of 672 patients with type 2 diabetes, was recruited from the diabetology departments of Lariboisière and Bichat Claude Bernard hospitals in France. This cohort allowed researchers to demonstrate that the higher the number of circulating monocytes, the greater the risk for cardiovascular events, independent of age and duration of diabetes. This observation was confirmed through a second cohort, GLUTADIAB, that comprised 279 patients with type 2 diabetes. Scientists complemented their work with molecular analysis of circulating monocytes in these two cohorts, which revealed certain predominant monocyte subtypes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. “These monocytes are dysfunctional because they have a mitochondrial problem,” Dr. Venteclef explained.

To better understand how these results could be used to predict cardiovascular risk, the team collaborated with colleagues from the University Hospital of Nantes on a cohort called SURDIAGENE, which included 757 patients with type 2 diabetes. “We conducted a longitudinal study by following these patients for 10 years and quantifying cardiovascular events and deaths,” said Dr. Venteclef. Circulating monocyte levels were correlated with the occurrence of heart attacks or strokes. The researchers observed that patients with type 2 diabetes with a monocyte count above a certain threshold (0.5 × 109/L) had a five- to seven-times higher risk for cardiovascular events over 10 years than those with a monocyte count below this threshold.

A patent was filed at the end of 2023 to protect this discovery. “Our next step is to develop a sensor to quantify monocytes more easily and avoid blood draws,” said Dr. Venteclef. “As part of a European project, we will also launch a trial with an anti-inflammatory drug in diabetics, with the hope of interrupting the inflammatory trajectory and preventing complications.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

A significant quantity of dysfunctional monocytes appears to indicate poor cardiovascular prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new publication. Nicolas Venteclef, PhD, director of an Inserm institute for diabetes research at Necker Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, France, led the research.

Quantifying Inflammation

Patients with type 2 diabetes have about twice the risk for a cardiovascular event associated with atherosclerosis, such as a heart attack or stroke, during their lifetimes. “Predicting these complications in diabetic patients is usually very difficult,” Dr. Venteclef told this news organization.

“They are strongly associated with inflammation in these patients. Therefore, we sought to quantify this inflammation in the blood.” To do this, his team focused on monocytes, a category of white blood cells circulating in the blood. They measured the blood concentration of monocytes and the subtypes present in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The results were published in Circulation Research.
 

Dysfunctional Monocytes

The team worked with three cohorts of patients. The first, named AngioSafe-2, consisting of 672 patients with type 2 diabetes, was recruited from the diabetology departments of Lariboisière and Bichat Claude Bernard hospitals in France. This cohort allowed researchers to demonstrate that the higher the number of circulating monocytes, the greater the risk for cardiovascular events, independent of age and duration of diabetes. This observation was confirmed through a second cohort, GLUTADIAB, that comprised 279 patients with type 2 diabetes. Scientists complemented their work with molecular analysis of circulating monocytes in these two cohorts, which revealed certain predominant monocyte subtypes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. “These monocytes are dysfunctional because they have a mitochondrial problem,” Dr. Venteclef explained.

To better understand how these results could be used to predict cardiovascular risk, the team collaborated with colleagues from the University Hospital of Nantes on a cohort called SURDIAGENE, which included 757 patients with type 2 diabetes. “We conducted a longitudinal study by following these patients for 10 years and quantifying cardiovascular events and deaths,” said Dr. Venteclef. Circulating monocyte levels were correlated with the occurrence of heart attacks or strokes. The researchers observed that patients with type 2 diabetes with a monocyte count above a certain threshold (0.5 × 109/L) had a five- to seven-times higher risk for cardiovascular events over 10 years than those with a monocyte count below this threshold.

A patent was filed at the end of 2023 to protect this discovery. “Our next step is to develop a sensor to quantify monocytes more easily and avoid blood draws,” said Dr. Venteclef. “As part of a European project, we will also launch a trial with an anti-inflammatory drug in diabetics, with the hope of interrupting the inflammatory trajectory and preventing complications.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

A significant quantity of dysfunctional monocytes appears to indicate poor cardiovascular prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to a new publication. Nicolas Venteclef, PhD, director of an Inserm institute for diabetes research at Necker Enfants Malades Hospital in Paris, France, led the research.

Quantifying Inflammation

Patients with type 2 diabetes have about twice the risk for a cardiovascular event associated with atherosclerosis, such as a heart attack or stroke, during their lifetimes. “Predicting these complications in diabetic patients is usually very difficult,” Dr. Venteclef told this news organization.

“They are strongly associated with inflammation in these patients. Therefore, we sought to quantify this inflammation in the blood.” To do this, his team focused on monocytes, a category of white blood cells circulating in the blood. They measured the blood concentration of monocytes and the subtypes present in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The results were published in Circulation Research.
 

Dysfunctional Monocytes

The team worked with three cohorts of patients. The first, named AngioSafe-2, consisting of 672 patients with type 2 diabetes, was recruited from the diabetology departments of Lariboisière and Bichat Claude Bernard hospitals in France. This cohort allowed researchers to demonstrate that the higher the number of circulating monocytes, the greater the risk for cardiovascular events, independent of age and duration of diabetes. This observation was confirmed through a second cohort, GLUTADIAB, that comprised 279 patients with type 2 diabetes. Scientists complemented their work with molecular analysis of circulating monocytes in these two cohorts, which revealed certain predominant monocyte subtypes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk. “These monocytes are dysfunctional because they have a mitochondrial problem,” Dr. Venteclef explained.

To better understand how these results could be used to predict cardiovascular risk, the team collaborated with colleagues from the University Hospital of Nantes on a cohort called SURDIAGENE, which included 757 patients with type 2 diabetes. “We conducted a longitudinal study by following these patients for 10 years and quantifying cardiovascular events and deaths,” said Dr. Venteclef. Circulating monocyte levels were correlated with the occurrence of heart attacks or strokes. The researchers observed that patients with type 2 diabetes with a monocyte count above a certain threshold (0.5 × 109/L) had a five- to seven-times higher risk for cardiovascular events over 10 years than those with a monocyte count below this threshold.

A patent was filed at the end of 2023 to protect this discovery. “Our next step is to develop a sensor to quantify monocytes more easily and avoid blood draws,” said Dr. Venteclef. “As part of a European project, we will also launch a trial with an anti-inflammatory drug in diabetics, with the hope of interrupting the inflammatory trajectory and preventing complications.”
 

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition 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.

Complications during pregnancy may be a wake-up call pointing to a higher risk for cardiovascular (CVD) and other diseases later in life. Therefore, the postpartum and interpregnancy periods are opportune windows for reducing CVD susceptibility and providing preventive care, especially for mothers with a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). To that end, the American Heart Association recently released a scientific statement in Circulation outlining pregnancy-related CVD risks and reviewing evidence for preventive lifestyle strategies based on the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 recommendations.

The Life’s Essential 8 encompass healthy eating, sleeping, and activity patterns; controlling weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar; and avoiding tobacco use.

“The motivation behind this statement was that complications in pregnancy are becoming more common and we now have more understanding that these serve as important risk factors for heart disease later in life,” said Jennifer Lewey, MD, MPH, director of the Penn Women’s Cardiovascular Health Program and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia.

Perelman School of Medicine

“These risk factors are underrecognized and underappreciated. Clinicians don’t feel comfortable counseling their patients about how to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Lewey, chair of the AHA writing group, said in an interview.

“So we thought this was the perfect time to highlight what we know and don’t know about how to care for this population,” she said.

APOs predispose mothers to heart disease and other long-term complications, including heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and vascular dementia. “Pregnancy is a significant stress on the body, and APOs such as preeclampsia can lead to vascular changes in the blood vessels and structural changes to the heart that can persist long term,” Dr. Lewey explained. Reduced maternal physical activity and unshed weight can compound the problem.

Varying by race and ethnicity, the proportion of mothers experiencing pregnancy complications, such as high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, and/or preterm birth is estimated at 10%-20%, the statement authors noted. These complications may serve as a wake-up call to young mothers.

The AHA panel believes that identifying at-risk women at younger ages will enable prevention through lifestyle changes and timely treatment. Little is known, however about what specific care may best reduce long-term CVD risk in women who had pregnancy complications, Dr. Lewey said. While randomized clinical trials have yet to evaluate the effects of postpartum interventions on CVD outcomes, the need for strategies supported by rigorous evidence is clear. “In particular, the fourth trimester, defined as the 12 weeks after delivery, is an optimal time to engage postpartum individuals in care to reduce maternal morbidity and improve care transitions,” the AHA group wrote.

An earlier AHA statement in 2021 recommended frequent cardiac risk factor screening in the first year postpartum at 6 and 12 weeks and again at 6 and 12 months, with appropriate transition from postpartum to longitudinal primary care around the 8- to 12-week mark.

Among the current statement’s findings: High blood pressure is the most prevalent cardiovascular condition during pregnancy, and the last two decades have seen a 25% increase in preeclampsia.

Hypertension during pregnancy carries a two- to fourfold higher risk of chronic hypertension within 2-7 years.

Women with one or more APOs experience heart attack and stroke at younger ages. Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, internist Natalie A. Cameron, MD, a primary and preventive care physician at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said, “This statement will be very helpful for physicians from a primary care perspective, especially since in internal medicine we don’t standardly receive education in cardiovascular health in the context of pregnancy and the first year postpartum.”

Northwestern Medicine

Complications during pregnancy may be a wake-up call pointing to a higher risk for cardiovascular (CVD) and other diseases later in life. Therefore, the postpartum and interpregnancy periods are opportune windows for reducing CVD susceptibility and providing preventive care, especially for mothers with a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). To that end, the American Heart Association recently released a scientific statement in Circulation outlining pregnancy-related CVD risks and reviewing evidence for preventive lifestyle strategies based on the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 recommendations.

The Life’s Essential 8 encompass healthy eating, sleeping, and activity patterns; controlling weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar; and avoiding tobacco use.

“The motivation behind this statement was that complications in pregnancy are becoming more common and we now have more understanding that these serve as important risk factors for heart disease later in life,” said Jennifer Lewey, MD, MPH, director of the Penn Women’s Cardiovascular Health Program and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia.

Perelman School of Medicine

“These risk factors are underrecognized and underappreciated. Clinicians don’t feel comfortable counseling their patients about how to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Lewey, chair of the AHA writing group, said in an interview.

“So we thought this was the perfect time to highlight what we know and don’t know about how to care for this population,” she said.

APOs predispose mothers to heart disease and other long-term complications, including heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and vascular dementia. “Pregnancy is a significant stress on the body, and APOs such as preeclampsia can lead to vascular changes in the blood vessels and structural changes to the heart that can persist long term,” Dr. Lewey explained. Reduced maternal physical activity and unshed weight can compound the problem.

Varying by race and ethnicity, the proportion of mothers experiencing pregnancy complications, such as high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, and/or preterm birth is estimated at 10%-20%, the statement authors noted. These complications may serve as a wake-up call to young mothers.

The AHA panel believes that identifying at-risk women at younger ages will enable prevention through lifestyle changes and timely treatment. Little is known, however about what specific care may best reduce long-term CVD risk in women who had pregnancy complications, Dr. Lewey said. While randomized clinical trials have yet to evaluate the effects of postpartum interventions on CVD outcomes, the need for strategies supported by rigorous evidence is clear. “In particular, the fourth trimester, defined as the 12 weeks after delivery, is an optimal time to engage postpartum individuals in care to reduce maternal morbidity and improve care transitions,” the AHA group wrote.

An earlier AHA statement in 2021 recommended frequent cardiac risk factor screening in the first year postpartum at 6 and 12 weeks and again at 6 and 12 months, with appropriate transition from postpartum to longitudinal primary care around the 8- to 12-week mark.

Among the current statement’s findings: High blood pressure is the most prevalent cardiovascular condition during pregnancy, and the last two decades have seen a 25% increase in preeclampsia.

Hypertension during pregnancy carries a two- to fourfold higher risk of chronic hypertension within 2-7 years.

Women with one or more APOs experience heart attack and stroke at younger ages. Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, internist Natalie A. Cameron, MD, a primary and preventive care physician at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said, “This statement will be very helpful for physicians from a primary care perspective, especially since in internal medicine we don’t standardly receive education in cardiovascular health in the context of pregnancy and the first year postpartum.”

Northwestern Medicine

Complications during pregnancy may be a wake-up call pointing to a higher risk for cardiovascular (CVD) and other diseases later in life. Therefore, the postpartum and interpregnancy periods are opportune windows for reducing CVD susceptibility and providing preventive care, especially for mothers with a history of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). To that end, the American Heart Association recently released a scientific statement in Circulation outlining pregnancy-related CVD risks and reviewing evidence for preventive lifestyle strategies based on the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 recommendations.

The Life’s Essential 8 encompass healthy eating, sleeping, and activity patterns; controlling weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar; and avoiding tobacco use.

“The motivation behind this statement was that complications in pregnancy are becoming more common and we now have more understanding that these serve as important risk factors for heart disease later in life,” said Jennifer Lewey, MD, MPH, director of the Penn Women’s Cardiovascular Health Program and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia.

Perelman School of Medicine

“These risk factors are underrecognized and underappreciated. Clinicians don’t feel comfortable counseling their patients about how to reduce their cardiovascular disease risk,” Dr. Lewey, chair of the AHA writing group, said in an interview.

“So we thought this was the perfect time to highlight what we know and don’t know about how to care for this population,” she said.

APOs predispose mothers to heart disease and other long-term complications, including heart failure, stroke, chronic kidney disease, and vascular dementia. “Pregnancy is a significant stress on the body, and APOs such as preeclampsia can lead to vascular changes in the blood vessels and structural changes to the heart that can persist long term,” Dr. Lewey explained. Reduced maternal physical activity and unshed weight can compound the problem.

Varying by race and ethnicity, the proportion of mothers experiencing pregnancy complications, such as high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, and/or preterm birth is estimated at 10%-20%, the statement authors noted. These complications may serve as a wake-up call to young mothers.

The AHA panel believes that identifying at-risk women at younger ages will enable prevention through lifestyle changes and timely treatment. Little is known, however about what specific care may best reduce long-term CVD risk in women who had pregnancy complications, Dr. Lewey said. While randomized clinical trials have yet to evaluate the effects of postpartum interventions on CVD outcomes, the need for strategies supported by rigorous evidence is clear. “In particular, the fourth trimester, defined as the 12 weeks after delivery, is an optimal time to engage postpartum individuals in care to reduce maternal morbidity and improve care transitions,” the AHA group wrote.

An earlier AHA statement in 2021 recommended frequent cardiac risk factor screening in the first year postpartum at 6 and 12 weeks and again at 6 and 12 months, with appropriate transition from postpartum to longitudinal primary care around the 8- to 12-week mark.

Among the current statement’s findings: High blood pressure is the most prevalent cardiovascular condition during pregnancy, and the last two decades have seen a 25% increase in preeclampsia.

Hypertension during pregnancy carries a two- to fourfold higher risk of chronic hypertension within 2-7 years.

Women with one or more APOs experience heart attack and stroke at younger ages. Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, internist Natalie A. Cameron, MD, a primary and preventive care physician at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, said, “This statement will be very helpful for physicians from a primary care perspective, especially since in internal medicine we don’t standardly receive education in cardiovascular health in the context of pregnancy and the first year postpartum.”

Northwestern Medicine

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Pennsylvania urologist is suing his former employer for the alleged illegal enforcement of a noncompete agreement that limits his ability to practice locally for the next 2 years. 

The lawsuit brings renewed attention to the ongoing public discourse around restrictive covenants for physicians as more state and federal legislators signal plans to limit or ban the practice. 

According to a civil suit filed on January 30 in the Court of Common Pleas, Scranton, Pennsylvania, Eric Rottenberg, MD, signed a 3-year employment agreement with Commonwealth Health Physician Network (CPN) in November 2022. He worked for the health system from May to November 2023, seeing patients at several of its locations, including Wilkes-Barre General Hospital and other facilities throughout northeast and central Pennsylvania. 

Although Dr. Rottenberg previously practiced in Albany, New York, court records state he did not bring a significant referral or patient base to the new role, receive any specialized training, or have knowledge of CPN’s trade secrets during his tenure. 

Instead, he was a “9-to-5 practitioner,” or a physician-employee like a “locum tenens whose replacement would not cost the employer more than his traditional compensation,” the complaint said. Dr. Rottenberg only treated patients assigned to him by CPN and its parent company, Commonwealth Health Systems, and did not take a patient base with him upon his departure from CPN. 

Commonwealth Health spokesperson Annmarie Poslock declined to comment on pending litigation. 

After becoming frustrated by “restrictions on his ability to practice medicine” at CPN, Dr. Rottenberg submitted the required 90-day written notice to terminate the employment agreement. He subsequently received a letter from Simon Ratliff, CPN’s chief executive officer, confirming that his last day of employment would be February 11, 2024. Ratliff also reiterated that the noncompete clause would be enforced, essentially banning Dr. Rottenberg from practicing within a 20-mile radius of his previous CPN locations for the next 2 years, court documents said. 

Dr. Rottenberg was recruited by Lehigh Valley Physician Group (LVPG), part of Lehigh Valley Health Network, in December 2023 for a urology position at its Dickson City and Scranton locations — some of which are within 20 miles of CPN facilities, the complaint said. 

Employers often include noncompete terms in physician contracts because they want to keep the departing physician’s patients from following them to a competitor. However, about a dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows physicians and other clinicians to more easily exit contracts and change jobs. 

For example, an Indiana law took effect on July 1 that prohibits employers from entering a noncompete agreement with primary care physicians. Minnesota legislators also banned new noncompete agreements for all employees effective July 1. 

“There’s actually been a long-standing push for bans on physician noncompetes going back to some of the first states to pass them, like Colorado, Delaware, and Massachusetts, in the late 1970s and early 1980s,” said Evan Starr, PhD, associate professor of management and organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland. 

Although New York Governor Kathy Hochul recently vetoed a bill that would have outlawed restrictive covenants, more states may consider passing laws that limit or ban noncompetes amid increasing patient equity and care access concerns. Dr. Starr told this news organization that one reason to eliminate restrictive covenants is because they can cause “third-party harm” to patients. “The patient doesn’t get the choice to sign a noncompete, but they’re going to be impacted by that agreement if the physician has to leave the area,” he said. 

Interestingly, one profession — lawyers — is the only occupation in the US for which noncompete agreements are banned, says Dr. Starr. “Basically, the American Medical Association (AMA) and other physician governing bodies haven’t made the same policies to exempt themselves that the lawyers have.”

That may be changing. In June, the AMA’s House of Delegates adopted policies to support the prohibition of noncompete contracts for employed physicians. The change came several months after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) proposed a new rule that could more broadly ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses. 

Despite Rottenberg’s attorney, Ryan Campbell, Esq, claiming that the noncompete is unenforceable without a protectable business interest, CPN would not release him from the agreement and opted to move forward with litigation, court records said. The suit cites several other cases where Pennsylvania judges have released physicians from similar restrictive covenants. 

Mr. Campbell told this news organization that he and his client are “working diligently with CPN and its counsel to resolve the matter amicably and without further litigation.” 

As employers await the FTC’s final rule, Dr. Starr says they could take steps to eliminate noncompete agreements altogether in favor of other stipulations. Contract terms prohibiting physicians from soliciting former patients could protect business interests and still allow patients to seek their preferred physician on their own accord. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A Nepali medical graduate has filed a federal lawsuit against the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME), which invalidated her test results earlier this year in response to a widespread cheating scandal. 

Latika Giri, MBBS, of Kathmandu, claims the board violated its own procedures by invalidating exam scores before giving examinees a chance to argue and appeal, according to documents filed on February 12 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Dr. Giri alleges that the NBME’s actions were discriminatory against Nepali doctors and run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. 

Dr. Giri is requesting that the court block NBME from invalidating her scores while the lawsuit continues and restore her original results. The complaint was filed as a class action suit on behalf of Dr. Giri and other as yet unnamed plaintiffs affected by the board’s action. 

The lawsuit stems from a January 31 statement from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) program that it was voiding scores attained by some examinees after an investigation revealed a pattern of anomalous exam performance associated with test-takers from Nepal. 

The announcement came just before the report about the selling and buying of USMLE questions online, and concerns that cheating on the exam had become “rampant” in recent years. The article was cited in Dr. Giri’s lawsuit.

A spokesman for the NBME said the board does not comment on pending litigation. 

Kritika Tara Deb, a Washington, DC–based attorney representing Dr. Giri, declined to answer specific questions about the case but expressed confidence in the outcome of the suit. 

“A policy that explicitly denies employment to an entire nationality or ethnicity is counter to US law and the USMLE’s non-discrimination principles,” Deb told this news organization in an email. “Such a blatantly discriminatory policy severely punishes honest doctors while unfairly maligning an entire nationality, and we’re confident it will not stand.”
 

Doctor Says She Didn’t Cheat

Dr. Giri is one of 22,000 foreign medical school graduates who complete the USMLE each year, in addition to the 24,000 US medical school graduates who take the exam. 

A 2022 graduate of the Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences, Dr. Giri completed her board exams in 2023. According to her lawsuit, she studied hard and did not cheat, passing Step 1 and scoring a 252 on Step 2 and a 229 on Step 3. Dr. Giri took Step 1 in Nepal, Step 2 in India, and Step 3 in Connecticut, according to court documents. In January 2024, Dr. Giri was preparing to enter the residency match pool and hoping to start her training in the summer when she received an email from NBME saying her USMLE scores had been invalidated. She was accused of “extremely improbable answer similarity with other examinees testing on the same form at similar times, unusually high performance, and abnormal question response times,” according to the complaint.

Dr. Giri and other examinees affected by the invalidations were given until February 16 to choose from three options. They could request that NBME reconsider its decision, which could take up to 10 weeks; agree to retake the test; or do nothing, in which case their scores would remain invalid and their access to USMLE would be suspended for 3 years. 

If examinees chose options 1 or 2, they would be required to waive their right to sue NBME, according to Dr. Giri’s lawsuit. 

“Because of the schedule of medical-residency matching, all three options result in graduates being unable to practice medicine for at least a year,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote in the complaint. “All three options force many people to abruptly leave the country within 30 days and cause every affected person to lose their jobs or the opportunity to seek a job.”
 

Lawsuit: Board Did Not Follow Published Practices

Dr. Giri contends that NBME’s handling of the suspected cheating violates its own published procedures and treats the subset of Nepali examinees differently from other medical graduates. Examinees suspected of cheating are typically first advised of the matter, given an opportunity to share relevant information, and provided the right to appeal, according to the suit. During the process, the test-taker’s score is treated as valid. 

Dr. Giri and others were not provided this same treatment and had their scores invalidated on “the explicit basis that they were associated with Nepal,” the suit claims. The actions are in direct violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination against “any individual with respect to his terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” according to the complaint. 

About 800 people are in the subset of Nepali test-takers targeted by the NBME, according to the suit. 

Dr. Giri said the score invalidations will cause plaintiffs “irreparable harm” if the NBME’s actions are not promptly halted. 

“As of January 31, 2024, plaintiffs who are applying to medical residencies are all ineligible for the Match, the deadline for which is February 28, 2024,” attorneys for Dr. Giri wrote. “All plaintiffs will thus miss this year’s Match no matter what. And NBME has offered no explanation for why it waited until the day before the Match opened to abruptly suspended plaintiffs’ scores: Dr. Giri and many others took some of the invalidated exams more than a year ago.”

Dr. Giri is requesting a decision by the court by February 21. The NBME meanwhile, plans to issue a legal response by February 19, according to court documents. 

Meanwhile, a petition started on change.org by a US emergency physician born calls for the USMLE program to degeneralize the wording of its January 31 statement. The USMLE statement “casts a shadow over the achievement of a supermajority of physicians from Nepal who succeeded through perseverance, honesty, and intelligence,” according to the petition. Petitioners want the USMLE program to change and clarify that it does “not mean to malign physicians from the entire country of Nepal.” More than 2700 people have signed the petition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

I recently received an email from a distraught physician. Several months previously, he had sold his practice to a large private equity-funded group. The terms spelled out in the group’s letter of intent (LOI) seemed ideal. He could continue running his office any way he wished, set his own hours and fees, and keep his employees. All his overhead expenses would disappear. His income would remain the same, maybe even increase. He signed it eagerly.

When he received the actual sale and employment contracts, none of the details promised in the LOI were included; but he figured that since they were spelled out in the LOI, which both he and the buyer had signed, he was covered. His attorney — a family friend with no experience in medical practice transactions — approved the documents.

The deal seemed too good to be true, and it was. The day after the sale closed, all his employees received termination notices. The group offered to rehire some of them, but at lower salaries and reduced benefits. (Most declined.) The new staffers he received were inadequately trained and unfamiliar with his standard office procedures. Patients complained that fees had increased substantially. His own compensation was contingent on meeting strict billing and performance goals. Malpractice premiums remained his responsibility. His office hours were lengthened to include evenings and Saturday mornings.

When he complained to the group that none of the things promised in the LOI had been delivered, he was informed that the LOI was not legally binding. In fact, the sale and employment contracts both clearly specified that they “replaced any previous written or oral agreements between the parties.”

There are some valuable lessons to be learned here. First, whether you are a young physician seeking a new job with a hospital or large practice, or an older one looking to sell an established practice, retain an attorney experienced in medical transactions early, before you sign anything, binding or not. Second, recognize that any promises made in an LOI must be spelled out in the employment and/or sale contract as well.

You might ask, if the terms in an LOI are not binding, why bother with one at all? For one thing, you want to make sure that you and your potential employer or buyer are on the same page with respect to major terms before you get down to details in the employment agreement and/or the medical practice sale agreement. For another, in most states certain LOI provisions are legally binding. For example, the document will most likely provide that each party is responsible for its own attorneys’ fees and for maintaining confidentiality during the negotiations, and that you will not negotiate with any other parties for some specified period of time. In most cases, such provisions are binding whether you go on to sign a formal contract or not.

When you receive an LOI, go through it carefully and identify areas of concern. The offering party will likely be in a rush to sign you up; but once you sign, you won’t be able to negotiate with anyone else for a while, which weakens your negotiating position. Regardless of what is said about time being “of the essence,” proceed slowly and with caution.

Bear in mind that employers and buyers never begin with their best offer. Unless you have been through this before, it is unlikely that you will know your value as an employee or the value of your practice, or what exactly you are entitled to ask for. Rather than signing something you don’t completely understand, explain to the offering party that you need time to consider and evaluate their offer.

This is the time to hire a competent medical attorney to do some due diligence on the offering party and review their offer, and to educate yourself about practice value and compensation benchmarks in your area. You and your counsel should assemble a list of things that you want changed in the LOI, then present them to the other side. They should be amenable to negotiation. If they are not (as was the case in the example presented earlier), you should reconsider whether you really want to be associated with that particular buyer or employer.

Once you have signed the LOI, experts say speed then works to your advantage. “Time kills all deals,” as one lawyer put it. “The longer it takes to close the transaction, the more that can go wrong.” The prospective employer or buyer could uncover information about you or your practice that decreases their perception of value, or economic conditions might change.

While speed is now important, and most of the core issues should already have been resolved in the LOI, don’t be afraid to ask for everything you want, whether it’s a better sale price, higher compensation, a favorable call schedule, more vacation time, or anything else. You won’t know what you can get if you don’t ask for it.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].