Cardiology News

Working as an emergency physician can be demanding. It’s also dangerous. In a 2022 study, two thirds of emergency physicians were assaulted in the past 12 months, and one third of those assaults resulted in an injury.

The attacks included verbal assaults with threats of violence (64%), hits/slaps (40%), being spit on (31%), kicked (26%), and punched (25%). Nearly one in four physicians said they were assaulted multiple times. 

The same survey found that 85% of emergency physicians believe that violence in the emergency department (ED) has increased over the past 5 years; nearly half (45%) say it has greatly increased.

To offset this disturbing trend, healthcare systems are trying new measures to reduce or prevent violence in the ED and protect staff and patients. EDs have security cameras, metal detectors, panic alarms, and security guards. And now more security guards are using body-worn cameras (bodycams) like police wear, to protect ED doctors and staff.

 

Bodycams in the ED

Scott Hill, EdD, CPP, CHPA, a board member of the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety Foundation, recently published a study on the impact of hospital security officers using bodycams. The study surveyed more than 100 hospitals. Fifty-three had security guards wearing bodycams; 57 had security guards without them.

The study supported the benefits of implementing body-worn cameras in a healthcare environment, said Hill, the former director of safety and security for King’s Daughters Health System in Ashland, Kentucky. “We were a little surprised by the data, but basically there was a positive impact…on the safety of hospital staff. There was higher officer confidence, better record-keeping, improved customer service, better training ... and better protection from false allegations.”

Hill told Medscape Medical News that bodycams can make for a safer ED. “The body-worn camera group believed that the cameras would have a positive impact that would make patients and staff feel safer,” said Hill. The idea is that security guards will use force more appropriately because the bodycam provides protection from false accusations.

Appropriate, timely intervention with disruptive or violent patients (or their family members) creates a safer environment for doctors, nurses, and other staff. (While the study found that hospital personnel felt safer with security guards wearing bodycams, physicians and healthcare staff were not surveyed in the study.)

 

Should Doctors Wear Bodycams?

While the idea of ED physicians or nurses wearing bodycams has been suggested, it’s a novel one to Jeffrey Goodloe, MD, an emergency physician in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and member of the American College of Emergency Physicians’ board of directors. “Even with a very vast network of colleagues, both professional and personal friends…I am personally not aware of an ER physician who wears a bodycam,” said Goodloe.

However, there’s no consensus on whether they should, he added. “If you ask 10 emergency room physicians [about wearing bodycams], some will say, ‘That would help’; some would say, ‘from an academic perspective, we don’t have the data,’ some would say, ‘what about privacy concerns?’ You’ll get all those responses,” said Goodloe.

“If a doctor is wearing a bodycam, one of the risks is that patients may not want to be upfront because they see a camera and they see it’s being recorded,” said Edward Wright, MD, a board-certified emergency medicine physician who owns freestanding emergency rooms (ERs) in San Antonio. “It could cause a lot of damage to the relationship between the patient and the physician.”

 

Other Potential Drawbacks of Bodycams

When it comes to patient care, “the presence of a body camera [on a security guard] in and of itself is not intrusive or detrimental to the professional actions of an emergency physician,” said Goodloe, who often sees police officers and security guards with bodycams in the ED. “However, when we are in the process of treating patients, there is a certain amount of privacy that patients and their families and loved ones have a reasonable right to expect in an ED.”

Wright has seen police officers wearing body cameras as well as patients using their phones to record in the ED. “That happens a lot…in Texas, anyone in a public place can record audio and video,” said Wright. “I would say the concern with anyone recording things is patient’s privacy and HIPPA concerns.” While some areas, like the waiting room and hallways, are considered public, the patient care areas are typically private — and a bodycam could violate that privacy.

“The biggest concern we have with bodycams is the unintended violation of someone else’s privacy,” said Goodloe. In an ER setting, he explains that it’s difficult for someone wearing a bodycam to prevent unintentionally recording multiple other patients in the footage. “How do we provide care and protect patient privacy?”

And while a camera makes a record, it may not always be an accurate reflection of what happened. “You might have a video record of what I said and what the patient said, but the camera doesn’t tell the whole story,” said Wright. “There are nuances, and there may be family members who are not on camera…you have to consider that something may be missing.”

Most EDs have wall-mounted security cameras; a 2023 study found that 94.7% had security cameras in key locations. Signage alerting patients of cameras is also common; more than half of EDs have signage warning patients and visitors that they are being recorded, so there may be little expectation of privacy in public areas. But unfortunately, sometimes, patients must be triaged, and treated, in the hallways of busy EDs, where they are subject to being recorded either on stationary or body-worn cameras.

 

Keeping the ED Safe

Putting aside privacy concerns, security measures meant to protect staff and patients can only do so much. “Some security measures are more of a feel-good measure,” said Wright. “We have automatic door locks for our doors, but the whole side of the building is glass…my personal feeling is that cameras can be a deterrent, but if someone has an intention to hurt someone else or is psychotic, you aren’t going to be able to stop them from what they’re going to do.”

Regardless, we’re likely to see more security measures like body-worn cameras in the ED. “Workplace safety is very much on the minds of ER physicians and ER nurses,” said Goodloe. “EDs have become sites of workplace violence with unacceptable increasing frequency…how do we solve this, [while] simultaneously not discouraging or preventing access to emergency care when and where people need it most?”

“We truly care about patient safety and our colleagues’ safety, and we want to be able to come in and make a positive difference,” said Goodloe. But ultimately, doctors want to go home safely to their families, and they want their patients to be able to do that, too.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Working as an emergency physician can be demanding. It’s also dangerous. In a 2022 study, two thirds of emergency physicians were assaulted in the past 12 months, and one third of those assaults resulted in an injury.

The attacks included verbal assaults with threats of violence (64%), hits/slaps (40%), being spit on (31%), kicked (26%), and punched (25%). Nearly one in four physicians said they were assaulted multiple times. 

The same survey found that 85% of emergency physicians believe that violence in the emergency department (ED) has increased over the past 5 years; nearly half (45%) say it has greatly increased.

To offset this disturbing trend, healthcare systems are trying new measures to reduce or prevent violence in the ED and protect staff and patients. EDs have security cameras, metal detectors, panic alarms, and security guards. And now more security guards are using body-worn cameras (bodycams) like police wear, to protect ED doctors and staff.

 

Bodycams in the ED

Scott Hill, EdD, CPP, CHPA, a board member of the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety Foundation, recently published a study on the impact of hospital security officers using bodycams. The study surveyed more than 100 hospitals. Fifty-three had security guards wearing bodycams; 57 had security guards without them.

The study supported the benefits of implementing body-worn cameras in a healthcare environment, said Hill, the former director of safety and security for King’s Daughters Health System in Ashland, Kentucky. “We were a little surprised by the data, but basically there was a positive impact…on the safety of hospital staff. There was higher officer confidence, better record-keeping, improved customer service, better training ... and better protection from false allegations.”

Hill told Medscape Medical News that bodycams can make for a safer ED. “The body-worn camera group believed that the cameras would have a positive impact that would make patients and staff feel safer,” said Hill. The idea is that security guards will use force more appropriately because the bodycam provides protection from false accusations.

Appropriate, timely intervention with disruptive or violent patients (or their family members) creates a safer environment for doctors, nurses, and other staff. (While the study found that hospital personnel felt safer with security guards wearing bodycams, physicians and healthcare staff were not surveyed in the study.)

 

Should Doctors Wear Bodycams?

While the idea of ED physicians or nurses wearing bodycams has been suggested, it’s a novel one to Jeffrey Goodloe, MD, an emergency physician in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and member of the American College of Emergency Physicians’ board of directors. “Even with a very vast network of colleagues, both professional and personal friends…I am personally not aware of an ER physician who wears a bodycam,” said Goodloe.

However, there’s no consensus on whether they should, he added. “If you ask 10 emergency room physicians [about wearing bodycams], some will say, ‘That would help’; some would say, ‘from an academic perspective, we don’t have the data,’ some would say, ‘what about privacy concerns?’ You’ll get all those responses,” said Goodloe.

“If a doctor is wearing a bodycam, one of the risks is that patients may not want to be upfront because they see a camera and they see it’s being recorded,” said Edward Wright, MD, a board-certified emergency medicine physician who owns freestanding emergency rooms (ERs) in San Antonio. “It could cause a lot of damage to the relationship between the patient and the physician.”

 

Other Potential Drawbacks of Bodycams

When it comes to patient care, “the presence of a body camera [on a security guard] in and of itself is not intrusive or detrimental to the professional actions of an emergency physician,” said Goodloe, who often sees police officers and security guards with bodycams in the ED. “However, when we are in the process of treating patients, there is a certain amount of privacy that patients and their families and loved ones have a reasonable right to expect in an ED.”

Wright has seen police officers wearing body cameras as well as patients using their phones to record in the ED. “That happens a lot…in Texas, anyone in a public place can record audio and video,” said Wright. “I would say the concern with anyone recording things is patient’s privacy and HIPPA concerns.” While some areas, like the waiting room and hallways, are considered public, the patient care areas are typically private — and a bodycam could violate that privacy.

“The biggest concern we have with bodycams is the unintended violation of someone else’s privacy,” said Goodloe. In an ER setting, he explains that it’s difficult for someone wearing a bodycam to prevent unintentionally recording multiple other patients in the footage. “How do we provide care and protect patient privacy?”

And while a camera makes a record, it may not always be an accurate reflection of what happened. “You might have a video record of what I said and what the patient said, but the camera doesn’t tell the whole story,” said Wright. “There are nuances, and there may be family members who are not on camera…you have to consider that something may be missing.”

Most EDs have wall-mounted security cameras; a 2023 study found that 94.7% had security cameras in key locations. Signage alerting patients of cameras is also common; more than half of EDs have signage warning patients and visitors that they are being recorded, so there may be little expectation of privacy in public areas. But unfortunately, sometimes, patients must be triaged, and treated, in the hallways of busy EDs, where they are subject to being recorded either on stationary or body-worn cameras.

 

Keeping the ED Safe

Putting aside privacy concerns, security measures meant to protect staff and patients can only do so much. “Some security measures are more of a feel-good measure,” said Wright. “We have automatic door locks for our doors, but the whole side of the building is glass…my personal feeling is that cameras can be a deterrent, but if someone has an intention to hurt someone else or is psychotic, you aren’t going to be able to stop them from what they’re going to do.”

Regardless, we’re likely to see more security measures like body-worn cameras in the ED. “Workplace safety is very much on the minds of ER physicians and ER nurses,” said Goodloe. “EDs have become sites of workplace violence with unacceptable increasing frequency…how do we solve this, [while] simultaneously not discouraging or preventing access to emergency care when and where people need it most?”

“We truly care about patient safety and our colleagues’ safety, and we want to be able to come in and make a positive difference,” said Goodloe. But ultimately, doctors want to go home safely to their families, and they want their patients to be able to do that, too.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Working as an emergency physician can be demanding. It’s also dangerous. In a 2022 study, two thirds of emergency physicians were assaulted in the past 12 months, and one third of those assaults resulted in an injury.

The attacks included verbal assaults with threats of violence (64%), hits/slaps (40%), being spit on (31%), kicked (26%), and punched (25%). Nearly one in four physicians said they were assaulted multiple times. 

The same survey found that 85% of emergency physicians believe that violence in the emergency department (ED) has increased over the past 5 years; nearly half (45%) say it has greatly increased.

To offset this disturbing trend, healthcare systems are trying new measures to reduce or prevent violence in the ED and protect staff and patients. EDs have security cameras, metal detectors, panic alarms, and security guards. And now more security guards are using body-worn cameras (bodycams) like police wear, to protect ED doctors and staff.

 

Bodycams in the ED

Scott Hill, EdD, CPP, CHPA, a board member of the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety Foundation, recently published a study on the impact of hospital security officers using bodycams. The study surveyed more than 100 hospitals. Fifty-three had security guards wearing bodycams; 57 had security guards without them.

The study supported the benefits of implementing body-worn cameras in a healthcare environment, said Hill, the former director of safety and security for King’s Daughters Health System in Ashland, Kentucky. “We were a little surprised by the data, but basically there was a positive impact…on the safety of hospital staff. There was higher officer confidence, better record-keeping, improved customer service, better training ... and better protection from false allegations.”

Hill told Medscape Medical News that bodycams can make for a safer ED. “The body-worn camera group believed that the cameras would have a positive impact that would make patients and staff feel safer,” said Hill. The idea is that security guards will use force more appropriately because the bodycam provides protection from false accusations.

Appropriate, timely intervention with disruptive or violent patients (or their family members) creates a safer environment for doctors, nurses, and other staff. (While the study found that hospital personnel felt safer with security guards wearing bodycams, physicians and healthcare staff were not surveyed in the study.)

 

Should Doctors Wear Bodycams?

While the idea of ED physicians or nurses wearing bodycams has been suggested, it’s a novel one to Jeffrey Goodloe, MD, an emergency physician in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and member of the American College of Emergency Physicians’ board of directors. “Even with a very vast network of colleagues, both professional and personal friends…I am personally not aware of an ER physician who wears a bodycam,” said Goodloe.

However, there’s no consensus on whether they should, he added. “If you ask 10 emergency room physicians [about wearing bodycams], some will say, ‘That would help’; some would say, ‘from an academic perspective, we don’t have the data,’ some would say, ‘what about privacy concerns?’ You’ll get all those responses,” said Goodloe.

“If a doctor is wearing a bodycam, one of the risks is that patients may not want to be upfront because they see a camera and they see it’s being recorded,” said Edward Wright, MD, a board-certified emergency medicine physician who owns freestanding emergency rooms (ERs) in San Antonio. “It could cause a lot of damage to the relationship between the patient and the physician.”

 

Other Potential Drawbacks of Bodycams

When it comes to patient care, “the presence of a body camera [on a security guard] in and of itself is not intrusive or detrimental to the professional actions of an emergency physician,” said Goodloe, who often sees police officers and security guards with bodycams in the ED. “However, when we are in the process of treating patients, there is a certain amount of privacy that patients and their families and loved ones have a reasonable right to expect in an ED.”

Wright has seen police officers wearing body cameras as well as patients using their phones to record in the ED. “That happens a lot…in Texas, anyone in a public place can record audio and video,” said Wright. “I would say the concern with anyone recording things is patient’s privacy and HIPPA concerns.” While some areas, like the waiting room and hallways, are considered public, the patient care areas are typically private — and a bodycam could violate that privacy.

“The biggest concern we have with bodycams is the unintended violation of someone else’s privacy,” said Goodloe. In an ER setting, he explains that it’s difficult for someone wearing a bodycam to prevent unintentionally recording multiple other patients in the footage. “How do we provide care and protect patient privacy?”

And while a camera makes a record, it may not always be an accurate reflection of what happened. “You might have a video record of what I said and what the patient said, but the camera doesn’t tell the whole story,” said Wright. “There are nuances, and there may be family members who are not on camera…you have to consider that something may be missing.”

Most EDs have wall-mounted security cameras; a 2023 study found that 94.7% had security cameras in key locations. Signage alerting patients of cameras is also common; more than half of EDs have signage warning patients and visitors that they are being recorded, so there may be little expectation of privacy in public areas. But unfortunately, sometimes, patients must be triaged, and treated, in the hallways of busy EDs, where they are subject to being recorded either on stationary or body-worn cameras.

 

Keeping the ED Safe

Putting aside privacy concerns, security measures meant to protect staff and patients can only do so much. “Some security measures are more of a feel-good measure,” said Wright. “We have automatic door locks for our doors, but the whole side of the building is glass…my personal feeling is that cameras can be a deterrent, but if someone has an intention to hurt someone else or is psychotic, you aren’t going to be able to stop them from what they’re going to do.”

Regardless, we’re likely to see more security measures like body-worn cameras in the ED. “Workplace safety is very much on the minds of ER physicians and ER nurses,” said Goodloe. “EDs have become sites of workplace violence with unacceptable increasing frequency…how do we solve this, [while] simultaneously not discouraging or preventing access to emergency care when and where people need it most?”

“We truly care about patient safety and our colleagues’ safety, and we want to be able to come in and make a positive difference,” said Goodloe. But ultimately, doctors want to go home safely to their families, and they want their patients to be able to do that, too.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The beneficial effect of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and remained event free for 6-18 months on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is consistent, regardless of bleeding risk or PCI complexity, according to a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HOST-EXAM Extended study conducted across 37 sites in South Korea included patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents and remained free of clinical events for 6-18 months post-PCI, while receiving DAPT.
• This post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM Extended study compared the effectiveness of long-term daily clopidogrel (75 mg) with that of aspirin monotherapy (100 mg) after PCI, according to bleeding risk and procedural complexity in 3974 patients (mean age, 63 years; 75% men) who were followed for up to 5.9 years.
• High bleeding risk was reported in 866 patients, and 849 patients underwent complex PCI.
• Patients were classified into four distinct risk groups: No bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, no bleeding risk and complex PCI, high bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, and high bleeding risk and complex PCI.
• The co-primary endpoints were thrombotic composite events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome, and definite/probable stent thrombosis) and any bleeding event.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thrombotic composite events (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; P < .001) and any bleeding event (HR, 3.64; P < .001) were more frequent in patients with a high bleeding risk than in those without.
• However, there was no difference in the risk for thrombotic composite events or any bleeding event by PCI complexity.
• The long-term benefits of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy were seen in all patients, regardless of bleeding risks (P for interaction = .38 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .20 for any bleeding event) or PCI complexity (P for interaction = .12 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .62 for any bleeding event).
• The greatest risk reduction in thrombotic composite events with clopidogrel monotherapy occurred in patients with a high bleeding risk who underwent complex PCI (HR, 0.46; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“[In this study], no significant interaction was found between treatment arms and risk groups, denoting that the beneficial impact of clopidogrel monotherapy was consistent regardless of HBR [high bleeding risk] or PCI complexity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jeehoon Kang, MD, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

As this study is a post hoc analysis, the findings should be considered primarily hypothesis generating. This study was conducted exclusively in an East Asian population and may not be generalizable to other ethnic groups. The definitions of high bleeding risk and complex PCI used in this analysis were not prespecified in the study protocol of the HOST-EXAM trial. Certain criteria defining high bleeding risk were not analyzed as they fell under the exclusion criteria of the HOST-EXAM trial or were not recorded in the study case report form.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center and Seoul National University Hospital. One author reported receiving grants and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

The beneficial effect of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and remained event free for 6-18 months on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is consistent, regardless of bleeding risk or PCI complexity, according to a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HOST-EXAM Extended study conducted across 37 sites in South Korea included patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents and remained free of clinical events for 6-18 months post-PCI, while receiving DAPT.
• This post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM Extended study compared the effectiveness of long-term daily clopidogrel (75 mg) with that of aspirin monotherapy (100 mg) after PCI, according to bleeding risk and procedural complexity in 3974 patients (mean age, 63 years; 75% men) who were followed for up to 5.9 years.
• High bleeding risk was reported in 866 patients, and 849 patients underwent complex PCI.
• Patients were classified into four distinct risk groups: No bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, no bleeding risk and complex PCI, high bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, and high bleeding risk and complex PCI.
• The co-primary endpoints were thrombotic composite events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome, and definite/probable stent thrombosis) and any bleeding event.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thrombotic composite events (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; P < .001) and any bleeding event (HR, 3.64; P < .001) were more frequent in patients with a high bleeding risk than in those without.
• However, there was no difference in the risk for thrombotic composite events or any bleeding event by PCI complexity.
• The long-term benefits of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy were seen in all patients, regardless of bleeding risks (P for interaction = .38 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .20 for any bleeding event) or PCI complexity (P for interaction = .12 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .62 for any bleeding event).
• The greatest risk reduction in thrombotic composite events with clopidogrel monotherapy occurred in patients with a high bleeding risk who underwent complex PCI (HR, 0.46; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“[In this study], no significant interaction was found between treatment arms and risk groups, denoting that the beneficial impact of clopidogrel monotherapy was consistent regardless of HBR [high bleeding risk] or PCI complexity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jeehoon Kang, MD, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

As this study is a post hoc analysis, the findings should be considered primarily hypothesis generating. This study was conducted exclusively in an East Asian population and may not be generalizable to other ethnic groups. The definitions of high bleeding risk and complex PCI used in this analysis were not prespecified in the study protocol of the HOST-EXAM trial. Certain criteria defining high bleeding risk were not analyzed as they fell under the exclusion criteria of the HOST-EXAM trial or were not recorded in the study case report form.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center and Seoul National University Hospital. One author reported receiving grants and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

The beneficial effect of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and remained event free for 6-18 months on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is consistent, regardless of bleeding risk or PCI complexity, according to a post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM trial.

METHODOLOGY:

• The HOST-EXAM Extended study conducted across 37 sites in South Korea included patients who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stents and remained free of clinical events for 6-18 months post-PCI, while receiving DAPT.
• This post hoc analysis of the HOST-EXAM Extended study compared the effectiveness of long-term daily clopidogrel (75 mg) with that of aspirin monotherapy (100 mg) after PCI, according to bleeding risk and procedural complexity in 3974 patients (mean age, 63 years; 75% men) who were followed for up to 5.9 years.
• High bleeding risk was reported in 866 patients, and 849 patients underwent complex PCI.
• Patients were classified into four distinct risk groups: No bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, no bleeding risk and complex PCI, high bleeding risk and noncomplex PCI, and high bleeding risk and complex PCI.
• The co-primary endpoints were thrombotic composite events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, readmission due to acute coronary syndrome, and definite/probable stent thrombosis) and any bleeding event.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thrombotic composite events (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; P < .001) and any bleeding event (HR, 3.64; P < .001) were more frequent in patients with a high bleeding risk than in those without.
• However, there was no difference in the risk for thrombotic composite events or any bleeding event by PCI complexity.
• The long-term benefits of clopidogrel monotherapy over aspirin monotherapy were seen in all patients, regardless of bleeding risks (P for interaction = .38 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .20 for any bleeding event) or PCI complexity (P for interaction = .12 for thrombotic composite events and P for interaction = .62 for any bleeding event).
• The greatest risk reduction in thrombotic composite events with clopidogrel monotherapy occurred in patients with a high bleeding risk who underwent complex PCI (HR, 0.46; P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“[In this study], no significant interaction was found between treatment arms and risk groups, denoting that the beneficial impact of clopidogrel monotherapy was consistent regardless of HBR [high bleeding risk] or PCI complexity,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Jeehoon Kang, MD, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. It was published online on November 27, 2024, in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

As this study is a post hoc analysis, the findings should be considered primarily hypothesis generating. This study was conducted exclusively in an East Asian population and may not be generalizable to other ethnic groups. The definitions of high bleeding risk and complex PCI used in this analysis were not prespecified in the study protocol of the HOST-EXAM trial. Certain criteria defining high bleeding risk were not analyzed as they fell under the exclusion criteria of the HOST-EXAM trial or were not recorded in the study case report form.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center and Seoul National University Hospital. One author reported receiving grants and personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies outside the submitted work.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Among pregnant patients with chronic hypertension, delivery at 39 weeks of gestation provides an optimal balance between stillbirth risk and neonatal outcomes. Analysis of 227,977 term singleton deliveries shows consistent findings across different patient subgroups.

METHODOLOGY:

• A population-based retrospective cohort study analyzed 227,977 nonanomalous singleton term births in the United States from 2014 to 2018 among patients with chronic hypertension.
• Researchers excluded pregnancies with superimposed preeclampsia, eclampsia, pregestational diabetes, and deliveries occurring before 37 weeks or at 43 or more weeks of gestation.
• Analysis compared rates of stillbirth, infant death within 1 year of life, and neonatal morbidity at each week of term pregnancy.
• Neonatal morbidity was defined as a composite of neonatal intensive care unit admission, ventilation for 6 hours or longer, a low 5-minute Apgar score (≤ 3), and seizures.

TAKEAWAY:

• The rate of stillbirth per 10,000 ongoing pregnancies increased with gestational age and was lowest at 38 weeks (6.5; 95% CI, 5.4-7.7).
• Rates of infant death and neonatal morbidity were lowest at 40 weeks (18.0/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 13.7-23.6) and 39 weeks (637/10,000 live births; 95% CI, 619-654), respectively.
• At 39 weeks of gestation, the risk for delivery was lower (651/10,000; 95% CI, 633-670) than the composite risk for expectant management (750/10,000; 95% CI, 720-781).
• According to the authors, findings were consistent for non-Hispanic Black patients and pregnancies complicated by fetal growth restriction.

IN PRACTICE:

“To prevent one case of stillbirth, infant death, or neonatal morbidity, an estimated 101 patients with chronic hypertension would need to deliver at 39 weeks of gestation as opposed to 40 weeks. Given the approximately 45,000 patients with chronic hypertension who deliver at term each year in the United States, a policy of delivery at 39 weeks of gestation theoretically would prevent 450 adverse perinatal events per year,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Ira Hamilton, James Liu, Labeena Wajahat, and Robert Rossi, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine in Cincinnati. It was published online in O&G Open.

LIMITATIONS:

According to the authors, the study could not stratify chronic hypertension based on medication use, number of medications, or degree of control. The researchers note that exact timing of delivery in weeks and days was not reported, limiting precise understanding of optimal delivery timing. Additionally, the study could not examine rates of neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients who developed superimposed preeclampsia during expectant management.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is higher with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) than with psoriasis.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective matched longitudinal study compared the incidence and prevalence of ASCVD of 8138 individuals with CLE; 24,675 with SLE; 192,577 with psoriasis; and 81,380 control individuals.
• The disease-free control population was matched in a 10:1 ratio to the CLE population on the basis of age, sex, insurance type, and enrollment duration.
• Prevalent ASCVD was defined as coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular accident, with ASCVD incidence assessed by number of hospitalizations over 3 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Persons with CLE had higher ASCVD risk than control individuals (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001), similar to those with SLE (OR, 2.41; P < .001) but unlike those with psoriasis (OR, 1.03; P = .48).
• ASCVD incidence at 3 years was 24.8 per 1000 person-years for SLE, 15.2 per 1000 person-years for CLE, 14.0 per 1000 person-years for psoriasis, and 10.3 per 1000 person-years for controls.
• Multivariable Cox proportional regression modeling showed ASCVD risk was highest in those with SLE (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; P < .001) vs CLE (HR, 1.32; P < .001) and psoriasis (HR, 1.06; P = .09).
• ASCVD prevalence was higher in individuals with CLE receiving systemic therapy (2.7%) than in those receiving no therapy (1.6%), suggesting a potential link between disease severity and CVD risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“Persons with CLE are at higher risk for ASCVD, and guidelines for the evaluation and management of ASCVD may improve their quality of care,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Henry W. Chen, MD, Department of Dermatology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. It was published online on December 4, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study was limited by its relatively young population (median age, 49 years) and the exclusion of adults aged > 65 years on Medicare insurance plans. The database lacked race and ethnicity data, and the analysis was restricted to a shorter 3-year period. The study could not fully evaluate detailed risk factors such as blood pressure levels, cholesterol measurements, or glycemic control, nor could it accurately assess smoking status.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by the Department of Dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being a deputy editor for diversity, equity, and inclusion at JAMA Cardiology. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New biologic drugs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are finally here, said Stephen Rennard, MD, in a presentation in a session on new drugs at the 2024 GOLD International COPD Conference.

The inflammatory pathways associated with COPD are diverse and offer a range of potential targets for biologics, said Rennard, a professor of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 

The therapeutic goals of biologics remain the same as with other treatments for COPD, namely restoration of normal inflammatory response and alteration of disease progression, as well as restoration of lost structure and function and improvement of systemic effects, Rennard said in his presentation. Most studies of new and up-and-coming drugs have improvement in acute exacerbation of COPD as the primary outcome.

 

The Biology Behind the Biologics

T2 inflammation is “an inflammatory cascade led by IL [interleukin]-4, IL-13, and IL-5,” Mona Bafadhel, MD, chair of Respiratory Medicine at King’s College London in England, said in her presentation during the session.

Bafadhel, who served as one of the investigators on the BOREAS and NOTUS studies, explained some of the science behind the development of the new biologics.

Eosinophils are powerful regulators of immune response and inflammation by stimulating T-cell production and affecting other immune cell types, she noted.

In the context of COPD and drug development, high blood eosinophil counts have been associated with increased COPD-related exacerbations, Bafadhel said. She cited data from a Dutch study of more than 7000 patients with COPD (with and without clinical diagnoses), in which absolute eosinophil counts ≥ 3.3% were associated with increased risk for severe exacerbations of 32% and 84% across all patients with COPD and clinical COPD, respectively.

Understanding the mechanisms of the eosinophil in COPD is important for research and development, Bafadhel said. Along with standardizing measurement of T2 inflammatory markers (IL-4, IL-13, and IL-5), more research is needed to fully understand the role of eosinophils in immunoregulation and repair.

 

Fitting the Biologic to the Patient

Several recent studies of up-and-coming biologics have focused on subsets of COPD patients, said Dave Singh, MD, professor of clinical pharmacology and respiratory medicine at The University of Manchester in England, in his presentation at the meeting. In September 2024, the Food and Drug Administration approved dupilumab as the first biologic treatment for patients with uncontrolled COPD and type 2 inflammation on the basis of eosinophil counts. Singh cited data from the BOREAS and NOTUS studies in which dupilumab significantly reduced exacerbations and improved lung function in these patients, compared with a placebo.

Mepolizumab, a biologic approved for asthma, is not currently approved for COPD, but data from a 2017 study showed a trend toward reduced exacerbations, compared with placebo, in a subset of patients with high blood eosinophil counts, Singh said.

In addition, a recent unpublished phase 3 study (MATINEE) showed a reduction in the annualized rate of exacerbations, compared with placebo, on the basis of up to 2 years’ follow-up.

Singh also highlighted data from a phase 2a study of astegolimab, a biologic drug that focuses on the IL-33 receptor, in which COPD exacerbation rates were not significantly different between treatment and placebo groups. However, astegolimab has shown safety and efficacy in adults with severe asthma and is under development in phase 3 trials for COPD.

Tezepelumab, which was approved by the FDA in 2021 as an add-on therapy for severe asthma in patients aged 12 years or older, is also in development as a therapy for COPD exacerbations, Singh said.

In a study presented at the 2024 American Thoracic Society annual meeting, Singh and colleagues found that tezepelumab at a subcutaneous dose of 420 mg every 4 weeks reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations compared with placebo based on data from approximately 300 patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Itepekimab, another biologic, showed promise in a phase 2a genetic association study involving current and former smokers with moderate to severe COPD, Singh said.

In that study, published in 2022 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, itepekimab failed to meet the primary endpoint in the overall study population of reduced annualized rate of moderate to severe exacerbations; however, a subgroup analysis of former smokers showed a significant (42%) reduction in exacerbations, Singh said in his presentation. Two phase 3 clinical studies (AERIFY-1/2) are ongoing to confirm the safety and efficacy of itepekimab in former smokers with COPD.

 

Takeaways and Next Steps

“These therapies provide the first new classes of medications approved for COPD in nearly 20 years,” said David M. Mannino, MD, of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, in an interview. “Dupilumab will be available to a subset of patients who are poorly controlled and have evidence of high eosinophils in their blood and is only used once every 2 weeks,” added Mannino, who has served as a consultant to companies developing COPD drugs.

Both dupilumab and ensifentrine, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and PDE4 inhibitor also recently approved for maintenance treatment of COPD, have been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms, said Mannino. Both offer additional options for patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations in spite of their current therapy.

Some barriers to the use of biologics in practice include the high cost. “Access and overcoming insurance-related issues such as preauthorization and high copays will be a challenge,” he said. Also, because dupilumab is an injectable drug, some patient training will be required.

Newer biologic therapies in development are also injectables, but some studies are examining longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which could be a major advancement for some patients. The newer therapies in development are similar to dupilumab in that they will be injected therapies. Some in development are looking at longer time intervals as long as every 6 months, which may be a major advancement for some patients. “All of these therapies, however, are currently targeting more advanced or serious disease,” he said.

Looking ahead, more therapies are needed for the treatment of early COPD, as well as therapies that can be administered to a large number of patients at a reasonable cost, Mannino added.

Rennard disclosed serving as a consultant for Verona Pharma, Sanofi, Beyond Air, RS BioTherapeutics, RespirAI, and Roche, as well as speaker fees from Sanofi and temporary ownership interest while employed by AstraZeneca. Rennard is also the founder of Great Plains Biometrix. Bafadhel disclosed funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), grants from Asthma + Lung UK, Horizon Europe, NIHR, and AstraZeneca to her institution, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Pfizer. Singh disclosed relationships including speaking sponsorships, honoraria, and advisory board memberships for Adovate, Aerogen, Almirall, Apogee, Arrowhead, AstraZeneca, Bial, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Connect Biopharm, Covis, CSL Behring, DevPro Biopharm, Elpen, Empirico, EpiEndo, Genentech, Generate Biomedicines, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Kamada, Kinaset Therapeutics, Kymera, Menarini, MicroA, OM Pharma, Orion, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pulmatrix, Revolo, Roivant Sciences, Sanofi, Synairgen, Tetherex, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Upstream, and Verona Pharma. Mannino disclosed serving as a consultant to multiple companies currently developing COPD therapies (AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Genentech, Amgen, and Chiesi).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Understanding how people make health-related decisions requires a deeper exploration of their motivations, beliefs, and circumstances, Christopher Dye, DPhil, professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford in England, and former director of strategy at the World Health Organization, said in an interview. “In public health, we tend to prescribe solutions. But unless we understand how people really make choices about health and why they are less interested in prevention and happier to wait until they become ill, then we are not in the position to shift away from curative treatments to preventive treatments.”

Despite the well-documented benefits of preventive measures, many people fail to engage in proactive health behaviors. This can be attributed to psychological biases and socioeconomic factors that shape how people prioritize their health.

“The choices people make have some to do with facts, but they also have much to do with values and perception. We need to understand and take these perceptions and values seriously,” Dye said.

 

The Paradox of Prevention

People often recognize prevention as the right course of action but fail to act. “We know it’s the right thing to do, but we don’t do it,” Dye said.

He explained that, when considering potential future threats, we assess two key factors: The severity of the danger and the cost of addressing it. Action is more likely when the danger is significant and the cost of mitigation is low.

This dynamic can be broken down into three critical questions:

What is the nature of the hazard? Is the threat severe, like Ebola, which has a case fatality rate of around 50% in untreated cases, or relatively milder, like COVID-19, with a fatality rate of less than 1% but a much broader spread? The nastier the hazard, the more likely we are to take it seriously.

How likely is it to happen? Even a severe threat will not prompt much concern if its likelihood is perceived as low. Our willingness to act depends heavily on how probable people think the hazard is.

When is it likely to happen? A threat looming in the immediate future is more compelling than one projected weeks, months, or years away. This is because people tend to heavily discount the value of future risks.

When these factors — severity, likelihood, and immediacy — combine with low mitigation costs, the incentives for action align.

However, cost is not limited to financial expense. It encompasses effort, willpower, access to information, and personal inclination. Similarly, the perception of threat is shaped not just by hard data and epidemiology but also by subjective values and cultural interpretations.

“We place a high value on now rather than later,” Theresa Marteau, PhD, a psychologist and behavioral scientist and director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at the University of Cambridge in England, said in an interview. “Treatment is about fixing a problem that we have now, rather than trying to avoid a problem sometime in the future. We also place a high value on certainty: I’m ill today, and I want to avoid that, as opposed to putting resources on a possible disease that might or might not occur.”

 

Investing in the Future: A Privilege of Stability

People often undervalue future health risks because of temporal discounting, a cognitive bias where immediate rewards are prioritized over long-term benefits. This tendency makes it challenging to address health issues that may only manifest years later.

From a public health perspective, this creates challenges. Warning individuals that harmful behaviors, such as smoking, may lead to severe health problems in a decade often falls on deaf ears. People naturally focus on immediate concerns, particularly when grappling with present challenges. For those living in poverty or social instability, the urgency of daily survival frequently outweighs the perceived benefits of preventive health measures.

“A cigarette during the day is just one brief source of pleasure, a short-term escape from all the other stuff happening in their lives, and there’s more of that stuff happening to poorer people than there is to richer people,” Dye said.

He said that long-term thinking comes more naturally to those with stability and resources. People who are financially secure, have stable jobs, supportive families, and comfortable homes are better equipped to invest for the future and prioritize their health.

“People value their health regardless of their social and economic circumstances,” said Marteau. “But they might not have the resources to engage in behavior-changing activities.”

 

Bringing the Future to the Present

Effective interventions often involve a combination of “sticks” (deterrents) and “carrots” (rewards), Dye explained. Both approaches aim to bridge the gap between immediate actions and future benefits by making preventive behaviors more appealing in the short term. “We need to bring the future into the present,” he added.

Raising the cost of unhealthy behaviors has proven effective. For example, increasing the price of cigarettes leads to significant reductions in smoking rates. When smoking becomes less affordable, individuals are more likely to quit. Dye said that this approach works to a certain extent. At some point, the number of people quitting plateaus and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds are those more likely to continue to smoke.

Offering immediate rewards for preventive behaviors provides a powerful incentive. Things that give tangible benefits, like attending regular health checkups, receiving vaccinations, or joining fitness programs, can motivate individuals to engage in health-preserving activities. “The key is ensuring these benefits are timely and meaningful, as delayed rewards are less effective in overcoming the natural bias toward the present,” said Dye.

Healthcare providers are best placed to help people engage in preventive behavior by referring patients to the right services, such as programs to stop smoking, weight loss programs and medications, or mental health providers, Marteau said. “It’s not telling people to stop smoking or change their diet. It’s about signposting them to effective services that will help them change their behavior.”

Dye and Marteau reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Understanding how people make health-related decisions requires a deeper exploration of their motivations, beliefs, and circumstances, Christopher Dye, DPhil, professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford in England, and former director of strategy at the World Health Organization, said in an interview. “In public health, we tend to prescribe solutions. But unless we understand how people really make choices about health and why they are less interested in prevention and happier to wait until they become ill, then we are not in the position to shift away from curative treatments to preventive treatments.”

Despite the well-documented benefits of preventive measures, many people fail to engage in proactive health behaviors. This can be attributed to psychological biases and socioeconomic factors that shape how people prioritize their health.

“The choices people make have some to do with facts, but they also have much to do with values and perception. We need to understand and take these perceptions and values seriously,” Dye said.

 

The Paradox of Prevention

People often recognize prevention as the right course of action but fail to act. “We know it’s the right thing to do, but we don’t do it,” Dye said.

He explained that, when considering potential future threats, we assess two key factors: The severity of the danger and the cost of addressing it. Action is more likely when the danger is significant and the cost of mitigation is low.

This dynamic can be broken down into three critical questions:

What is the nature of the hazard? Is the threat severe, like Ebola, which has a case fatality rate of around 50% in untreated cases, or relatively milder, like COVID-19, with a fatality rate of less than 1% but a much broader spread? The nastier the hazard, the more likely we are to take it seriously.

How likely is it to happen? Even a severe threat will not prompt much concern if its likelihood is perceived as low. Our willingness to act depends heavily on how probable people think the hazard is.

When is it likely to happen? A threat looming in the immediate future is more compelling than one projected weeks, months, or years away. This is because people tend to heavily discount the value of future risks.

When these factors — severity, likelihood, and immediacy — combine with low mitigation costs, the incentives for action align.

However, cost is not limited to financial expense. It encompasses effort, willpower, access to information, and personal inclination. Similarly, the perception of threat is shaped not just by hard data and epidemiology but also by subjective values and cultural interpretations.

“We place a high value on now rather than later,” Theresa Marteau, PhD, a psychologist and behavioral scientist and director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at the University of Cambridge in England, said in an interview. “Treatment is about fixing a problem that we have now, rather than trying to avoid a problem sometime in the future. We also place a high value on certainty: I’m ill today, and I want to avoid that, as opposed to putting resources on a possible disease that might or might not occur.”

 

Investing in the Future: A Privilege of Stability

People often undervalue future health risks because of temporal discounting, a cognitive bias where immediate rewards are prioritized over long-term benefits. This tendency makes it challenging to address health issues that may only manifest years later.

From a public health perspective, this creates challenges. Warning individuals that harmful behaviors, such as smoking, may lead to severe health problems in a decade often falls on deaf ears. People naturally focus on immediate concerns, particularly when grappling with present challenges. For those living in poverty or social instability, the urgency of daily survival frequently outweighs the perceived benefits of preventive health measures.

“A cigarette during the day is just one brief source of pleasure, a short-term escape from all the other stuff happening in their lives, and there’s more of that stuff happening to poorer people than there is to richer people,” Dye said.

He said that long-term thinking comes more naturally to those with stability and resources. People who are financially secure, have stable jobs, supportive families, and comfortable homes are better equipped to invest for the future and prioritize their health.

“People value their health regardless of their social and economic circumstances,” said Marteau. “But they might not have the resources to engage in behavior-changing activities.”

 

Bringing the Future to the Present

Effective interventions often involve a combination of “sticks” (deterrents) and “carrots” (rewards), Dye explained. Both approaches aim to bridge the gap between immediate actions and future benefits by making preventive behaviors more appealing in the short term. “We need to bring the future into the present,” he added.

Raising the cost of unhealthy behaviors has proven effective. For example, increasing the price of cigarettes leads to significant reductions in smoking rates. When smoking becomes less affordable, individuals are more likely to quit. Dye said that this approach works to a certain extent. At some point, the number of people quitting plateaus and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds are those more likely to continue to smoke.

Offering immediate rewards for preventive behaviors provides a powerful incentive. Things that give tangible benefits, like attending regular health checkups, receiving vaccinations, or joining fitness programs, can motivate individuals to engage in health-preserving activities. “The key is ensuring these benefits are timely and meaningful, as delayed rewards are less effective in overcoming the natural bias toward the present,” said Dye.

Healthcare providers are best placed to help people engage in preventive behavior by referring patients to the right services, such as programs to stop smoking, weight loss programs and medications, or mental health providers, Marteau said. “It’s not telling people to stop smoking or change their diet. It’s about signposting them to effective services that will help them change their behavior.”

Dye and Marteau reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Understanding how people make health-related decisions requires a deeper exploration of their motivations, beliefs, and circumstances, Christopher Dye, DPhil, professor of epidemiology at the University of Oxford in England, and former director of strategy at the World Health Organization, said in an interview. “In public health, we tend to prescribe solutions. But unless we understand how people really make choices about health and why they are less interested in prevention and happier to wait until they become ill, then we are not in the position to shift away from curative treatments to preventive treatments.”

Despite the well-documented benefits of preventive measures, many people fail to engage in proactive health behaviors. This can be attributed to psychological biases and socioeconomic factors that shape how people prioritize their health.

“The choices people make have some to do with facts, but they also have much to do with values and perception. We need to understand and take these perceptions and values seriously,” Dye said.

 

The Paradox of Prevention

People often recognize prevention as the right course of action but fail to act. “We know it’s the right thing to do, but we don’t do it,” Dye said.

He explained that, when considering potential future threats, we assess two key factors: The severity of the danger and the cost of addressing it. Action is more likely when the danger is significant and the cost of mitigation is low.

This dynamic can be broken down into three critical questions:

What is the nature of the hazard? Is the threat severe, like Ebola, which has a case fatality rate of around 50% in untreated cases, or relatively milder, like COVID-19, with a fatality rate of less than 1% but a much broader spread? The nastier the hazard, the more likely we are to take it seriously.

How likely is it to happen? Even a severe threat will not prompt much concern if its likelihood is perceived as low. Our willingness to act depends heavily on how probable people think the hazard is.

When is it likely to happen? A threat looming in the immediate future is more compelling than one projected weeks, months, or years away. This is because people tend to heavily discount the value of future risks.

When these factors — severity, likelihood, and immediacy — combine with low mitigation costs, the incentives for action align.

However, cost is not limited to financial expense. It encompasses effort, willpower, access to information, and personal inclination. Similarly, the perception of threat is shaped not just by hard data and epidemiology but also by subjective values and cultural interpretations.

“We place a high value on now rather than later,” Theresa Marteau, PhD, a psychologist and behavioral scientist and director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at the University of Cambridge in England, said in an interview. “Treatment is about fixing a problem that we have now, rather than trying to avoid a problem sometime in the future. We also place a high value on certainty: I’m ill today, and I want to avoid that, as opposed to putting resources on a possible disease that might or might not occur.”

 

Investing in the Future: A Privilege of Stability

People often undervalue future health risks because of temporal discounting, a cognitive bias where immediate rewards are prioritized over long-term benefits. This tendency makes it challenging to address health issues that may only manifest years later.

From a public health perspective, this creates challenges. Warning individuals that harmful behaviors, such as smoking, may lead to severe health problems in a decade often falls on deaf ears. People naturally focus on immediate concerns, particularly when grappling with present challenges. For those living in poverty or social instability, the urgency of daily survival frequently outweighs the perceived benefits of preventive health measures.

“A cigarette during the day is just one brief source of pleasure, a short-term escape from all the other stuff happening in their lives, and there’s more of that stuff happening to poorer people than there is to richer people,” Dye said.

He said that long-term thinking comes more naturally to those with stability and resources. People who are financially secure, have stable jobs, supportive families, and comfortable homes are better equipped to invest for the future and prioritize their health.

“People value their health regardless of their social and economic circumstances,” said Marteau. “But they might not have the resources to engage in behavior-changing activities.”

 

Bringing the Future to the Present

Effective interventions often involve a combination of “sticks” (deterrents) and “carrots” (rewards), Dye explained. Both approaches aim to bridge the gap between immediate actions and future benefits by making preventive behaviors more appealing in the short term. “We need to bring the future into the present,” he added.

Raising the cost of unhealthy behaviors has proven effective. For example, increasing the price of cigarettes leads to significant reductions in smoking rates. When smoking becomes less affordable, individuals are more likely to quit. Dye said that this approach works to a certain extent. At some point, the number of people quitting plateaus and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds are those more likely to continue to smoke.

Offering immediate rewards for preventive behaviors provides a powerful incentive. Things that give tangible benefits, like attending regular health checkups, receiving vaccinations, or joining fitness programs, can motivate individuals to engage in health-preserving activities. “The key is ensuring these benefits are timely and meaningful, as delayed rewards are less effective in overcoming the natural bias toward the present,” said Dye.

Healthcare providers are best placed to help people engage in preventive behavior by referring patients to the right services, such as programs to stop smoking, weight loss programs and medications, or mental health providers, Marteau said. “It’s not telling people to stop smoking or change their diet. It’s about signposting them to effective services that will help them change their behavior.”

Dye and Marteau reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, lipid-lowering drugs, were associated with a 22% lower risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), an effect that was particularly significant among men, those older than 65 years, and those with immunosuppression.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the risk for NMSC — basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) — in patients with ASCVD on PCSK9 inhibitors, researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in the TriNetX database of adults aged ≥ 40 years with ASCVD who received statin therapy between 2016 and 2022.
• A total of 73,636 patients were included, divided equally between those receiving a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab, alirocumab, or inclisiran) plus statin therapy and the control group (those on statin therapy only).
• The analysis used propensity score matching for head-to-head comparisons, with hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox proportional hazard models.
• Stratified analyses examined outcomes by age, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type, and immune status. (Immunosuppressed patients were those treated with immunosuppressants for more than 90 days in the year before the index date — the date when exposed patients were first prescribed a PCSK9 inhibitor, which was also index date for matched patients in the statin-only group.)

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ASCVD in the PCSK9 group showed significantly lower risks for NMSC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87), BCC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and SCC (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93) than control individuals on a statin only (P < .001 for all three).
• Both evolocumab and alirocumab demonstrated similar protective effects against the development of NMSC.
• The reduced risk for NMSC was particularly notable among patients aged 65-79 years (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and those aged ≥ 80 years (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91).
• Men showed a more pronounced reduction in the risk for NMSC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83) than women (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). The effect on lowering NMSC risk was also evident among immunosuppressed patients in the PCSK9 group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest the promising pleiotropic effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on the chemoprevention of NMSC,” the study authors wrote. Referring to previous studies that “provided mechanistic clues to our findings,” they added that “further studies are required to investigate the underlying mechanisms and establish causality.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Cheng-Yuan Li, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, and was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Electronic health records lack information on sun protection habits, family history of skin cancer, diet, body mass index, and air pollution exposure, risk factors for NMSC. The study also lacked detailed information on enrollees’ lipid profiles and was focused mostly on patients in the United States, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other regions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, lipid-lowering drugs, were associated with a 22% lower risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), an effect that was particularly significant among men, those older than 65 years, and those with immunosuppression.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the risk for NMSC — basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) — in patients with ASCVD on PCSK9 inhibitors, researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in the TriNetX database of adults aged ≥ 40 years with ASCVD who received statin therapy between 2016 and 2022.
• A total of 73,636 patients were included, divided equally between those receiving a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab, alirocumab, or inclisiran) plus statin therapy and the control group (those on statin therapy only).
• The analysis used propensity score matching for head-to-head comparisons, with hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox proportional hazard models.
• Stratified analyses examined outcomes by age, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type, and immune status. (Immunosuppressed patients were those treated with immunosuppressants for more than 90 days in the year before the index date — the date when exposed patients were first prescribed a PCSK9 inhibitor, which was also index date for matched patients in the statin-only group.)

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ASCVD in the PCSK9 group showed significantly lower risks for NMSC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87), BCC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and SCC (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93) than control individuals on a statin only (P < .001 for all three).
• Both evolocumab and alirocumab demonstrated similar protective effects against the development of NMSC.
• The reduced risk for NMSC was particularly notable among patients aged 65-79 years (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and those aged ≥ 80 years (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91).
• Men showed a more pronounced reduction in the risk for NMSC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83) than women (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). The effect on lowering NMSC risk was also evident among immunosuppressed patients in the PCSK9 group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest the promising pleiotropic effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on the chemoprevention of NMSC,” the study authors wrote. Referring to previous studies that “provided mechanistic clues to our findings,” they added that “further studies are required to investigate the underlying mechanisms and establish causality.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Cheng-Yuan Li, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, and was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Electronic health records lack information on sun protection habits, family history of skin cancer, diet, body mass index, and air pollution exposure, risk factors for NMSC. The study also lacked detailed information on enrollees’ lipid profiles and was focused mostly on patients in the United States, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other regions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, lipid-lowering drugs, were associated with a 22% lower risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), an effect that was particularly significant among men, those older than 65 years, and those with immunosuppression.

METHODOLOGY:

• To evaluate the risk for NMSC — basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) — in patients with ASCVD on PCSK9 inhibitors, researchers analyzed data from the US Collaborative Network in the TriNetX database of adults aged ≥ 40 years with ASCVD who received statin therapy between 2016 and 2022.
• A total of 73,636 patients were included, divided equally between those receiving a PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab, alirocumab, or inclisiran) plus statin therapy and the control group (those on statin therapy only).
• The analysis used propensity score matching for head-to-head comparisons, with hazard ratios (HRs) estimated using Cox proportional hazard models.
• Stratified analyses examined outcomes by age, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type, and immune status. (Immunosuppressed patients were those treated with immunosuppressants for more than 90 days in the year before the index date — the date when exposed patients were first prescribed a PCSK9 inhibitor, which was also index date for matched patients in the statin-only group.)

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ASCVD in the PCSK9 group showed significantly lower risks for NMSC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.87), BCC (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89), and SCC (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93) than control individuals on a statin only (P < .001 for all three).
• Both evolocumab and alirocumab demonstrated similar protective effects against the development of NMSC.
• The reduced risk for NMSC was particularly notable among patients aged 65-79 years (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.86) and those aged ≥ 80 years (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91).
• Men showed a more pronounced reduction in the risk for NMSC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83) than women (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). The effect on lowering NMSC risk was also evident among immunosuppressed patients in the PCSK9 group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.75).

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings suggest the promising pleiotropic effect of PCSK9 inhibitors on the chemoprevention of NMSC,” the study authors wrote. Referring to previous studies that “provided mechanistic clues to our findings,” they added that “further studies are required to investigate the underlying mechanisms and establish causality.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Cheng-Yuan Li, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, and was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Electronic health records lack information on sun protection habits, family history of skin cancer, diet, body mass index, and air pollution exposure, risk factors for NMSC. The study also lacked detailed information on enrollees’ lipid profiles and was focused mostly on patients in the United States, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other regions.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT can detect extensive coronary artery calcium (CAC), an independent predictor of all-cause death and cardiovascular events, new research suggested.

“The high prevalence of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (83%) was surprising, as was the prevalence of extensive CAC (30%),” principal investigator Gary Small, MBChB, PhD, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute in Ontario, Canada, said in an interview.

“The size of effect was also surprising, as was the persistence of the effect even in the presence of elevated mortality risk from other causes,” he said. “Extensive coronary disease was associated with a twofold increase in risk for death or cardiovascular events over 4 years of follow-up,” even after adjustment for risk for death from cancer and other comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

“CAC as reported on chest CT exams is often ignored and not factored into clinical practice,” he noted. “The presence of CAC, however, provides a very real and very personal perspective on an individual’s cardiovascular risk. It is a true example of personalized medicine.”

The study was published online in The Canadian Medical Association Journal.

 

Potential Risk Reduction 

In March 2017, Ontario Health launched a pilot low-dose CT lung cancer screening program for high-risk individuals between the ages of 55 and 74 years, Small explained. As CAC, a marker of coronary artery disease, is seen easily during such a scan, the researchers analyzed the lung CTs to determine the prevalence of coronary artery disease and whether CAC was associated with increased risk.

The team quantified CAC using an estimated Agatston score and identified the composite primary outcome of all-cause death and cardiovascular events using linked electronic medical record data from Ottawa Hospital up to December 2023. Among the 1486 people who underwent screening (mean age, 66 years; 52% men; 68% current smokers), CAC was detected in 1232 (82.9%). CAC was mild to moderate in 793 participants (53.4%) and extensive in 439 (29.5%). No CAC was detected in 254 (17.1%) participants.

At follow-up, 78 participants (5.2%) experienced the primary composite outcome, including 39 (8.9%) with extensive CAC, 32 (4.0%) with mild to moderate CAC, and 7 (2.8%) with no CAC.

A total of 49 deaths occurred, including 16 cardiovascular deaths and 19 cancer deaths, of which 10 were from lung cancer. Cardiovascular events included sudden cardiac death (eight participants), fatal stroke (six participants), and one each from heart failure and peripheral vascular disease.

On multivariable analysis, extensive CAC was associated with the composite primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.13), all-cause mortality (aHR, 2.39), and cardiovascular events (aHR, 2.06).

Extensive CAC remained predictive of cardiovascular events even after adjustment for noncardiovascular death as a competing risk (HR, 2.05).

“Our data highlight to lung cancer screening professionals the prevalence of this silent risk factor and re-emphasize the importance of this finding [ie, CAC] as an opportunity for risk reduction,” Small said.

“In terms of next steps, the journey toward cardiovascular risk reduction begins with a clear report of CAC on the lung cancer screening record,” he noted. “Following this step, professionals involved in the lung cancer screening program might consider a local management pathway to ensure that this opportunity for health improvement is not lost or ignored. Preventive medicine of this type would typically involve primary care.”

 

Managing Other Findings

Commenting on the study, Anna Bader, MD, assistant professor of radiology and biomedical imaging at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, said that “low-dose CT for lung cancer screening offers valuable insights beyond nodule detection, with CAC being among the most significant incidental findings.”

However, she added, a “robust mechanism” to effectively manage other findings — such as thoracic aortic disease, low bone density, and abnormalities in the thyroid or upper abdominal organs — without overdiagnosis, is needed. A mechanism also is needed to notify cardiologists or primary care providers about severe CAC findings.

Challenges that need to be overcome before such mechanisms can be put in place, she said, “include ensuring standardized CAC reporting, avoiding overburdening healthcare providers, mitigating the risk of excessive downstream testing, and ensuring equitable access to follow-up care for underserved and rural communities.”

Providers involved in lung cancer screening “must be trained to recognize the importance of CAC findings and act upon them,” she added. “Awareness campaigns or continuing medical education modules could address this.”

Multidisciplinary lung cancer screening programs can help with patient education, she noted. “Clear communication about potential findings, including the significance of incidental CAC, should be prioritized and addressed proactively, ideally before the exam, to enhance patient understanding and engagement.”

Matthew Tomey, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, said that, “as a practicing cardiologist, I find it very helpful to look at my patients’ recent or past CT scans to look for vascular calcification. Whether or not a scan is specifically protocoled as a cardiac study, we can often appreciate vascular calcification when it is present. I would encourage every physician involved in helping their patients to prevent heart disease to take advantage of looking at any prior CT scans for evidence of vascular calcification.

“Systems of care to facilitate recognition of patients with incidentally discovered vascular calcification would be welcome and, on a large scale, could help prevent cardiovascular events,” he noted. “Such a system might involve facilitating referral to a prevention specialist. It could involve evidence-based guidance for referring physicians who ordered scans.”

Like Bader, he noted the importance of patient education, adding that it could be quite powerful. “We should be doing more to empower our patients to understand the findings of their imaging and to give them actionable, evidence-based guidance on how they can promote their own cardiovascular health,” he concluded.

No funding for the study was reported. Small reported receiving a research grant for amyloid research from Pfizer and honoraria from Pfizer and Alnylam (all paid to the institution, outside the submitted work). Bader and Tomey declared no relevant conflicts.

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

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

They’re literally not better. Idealistically, sure, but literally not. And there’s really no debate. Meaning there’s never been a reproducible diet and exercise intervention that has led to anywhere near the average weight lost by those taking obesity medications. Furthermore, when it comes to the durability of weight lost, the gulf between outcomes with diet and exercise vs obesity medications is even more dramatic.

Looking to the literature, one of the most trotted out studies on lifestyle’s impact on weight over time is the Look AHEAD trial. Before useful obesity medications came on the scene, I trotted it out myself. Why? Because it was heartening when faced with the societal refrain that diet and exercise never worked to be able to show that yes, in fact they do. But how well?

Looking to Look AHEAD’s 4-year data (Obesity [Silver Spring]. 2011 Oct;19[10]:1987-1998), those randomized to the intensive lifestyle initiative arm averaged a 4.7% total body weight loss – an amount that remained the same at 8 years. But I chose 4 years because that’s a better comparison with the semaglutide SELECT trial that revealed at 4 years, the average sustained weight lost was more than double that of Look AHEAD’s, at 10.2%. Meanwhile the recently released SURMOUNT-4 study on tirzepatide reported that at 88 weeks, the average weight lost by participants was a near bariatric surgery level of 25.3% with no signs suggestive of pending regains.

Now maybe you want to cling to the notion that if you just try hard enough, your diet and exercise regime can beat our new meds. Well, it’s difficult to think of a more miserable, often actual vomit-inducing intervention, than the spectacle that used to air weekly on prime time called The Biggest Loser, where participants lived on a ranch and were berated and exercised all day long for the chance to lose the most and win a quarter of a million dollars. But even there, the meds prove to be superior. Although the short-term Biggest Loser data do look markedly better than meds (and than bariatric surgery), whereby the average participant lost 48.8% of their body weight during the grueling 7-month long, 24/7 competition, by postcompetition year 6, the average weight lost dropped to 12.7%.

Yet on November 26, when word came out that Medicare is likely to extend coverage to obesity medications for far more Americans, one of the most common refrains was something along the lines of yes, lifestyle modification is the best choice for dealing with obesity but it’s good that there will be medication options for those where that’s insufficient.

What?

The only reason that the world isn’t comfortable with the eminently provable truth that diet and exercise are inferior to obesity medications for weight management is weight bias. The message is that people simply aren’t trying hard enough. This despite our comfort in knowing that medications have more of an impact than lifestyle on pretty much every other chronic disease. Nor can I recall any other circumstance when coverage of a remarkably effective drug was qualified by the suggestion that known-to-be-inferior interventions are still the best or favored choice.

At this point, obesity medications are plainly the first-line choice of treatment. They provide not only dramatically greater and more durable weight loss than lifestyle interventions, they have also been shown to very significantly reduce the risk for an ever-growing list of other medical concerns including heart attacks, strokes, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, sleep apnea, fatty liver disease, and more, while carrying minimal risk.

Let it also be said that improvements to diet and exercise are worth striving for at any weight, though one should not lose sight of the fact that perpetual, dramatic, intentional, behavior change in the name of health requires vast amounts of wide-ranging privilege to enact — amounts far beyond the average person’s abilities or physiologies (as demonstrated with obesity by decades of disappointing long-term lifestyle outcome data). 

Let it also be said that some people will indeed find success solely through lifestyle and that not every person who meets the medical criteria for any medication’s prescription, including obesity medications, is required or encouraged to take it. The clinician’s job, however, at its most basic, is to inform patients who meet medical use criteria of their options, and if a medication is indicated, to inform them of that medication’s risks and benefits and expected outcomes, to help their patients come to their own treatment decisions.

It’s not a bad thing that we have medications that deliver better outcomes than lifestyle — in fact, it’s terrific, and thankfully that they do is true for pretty much every medical condition for which we have medication. That’s in fact why we have medications! And so this constant refrain of golly-gee wouldn’t it be better if we could just manage obesity with lifestyle changes needs to be put to rest — we literally know it wouldn’t be better, and it’s only weight bias that would lead this evidence-based statement to seem off-putting.

Dr. Freedhoff is Associate Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, and Medical Director, Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He reported conflicts of interest with the Bariatric Medical Institute, Constant Health, Novo Nordisk, and Weighty Matters.

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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

The results of the SUMMIT trial of the long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and GLP-1 receptors, tirzepatide, in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and obesity are positive. But the trial design leaves clinicians and regulators with big doses of uncertainty.

Known Facts About HFpEF

HFpEF has exceeded heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) as the most common form of heart failure. HFpEF differs from HFrEF in that patients with preserved ejection fraction often present later in life with more comorbidities.

Some of these comorbidities are on the causal pathway of heart failure. Obesity, for instance, both associates with HFpEF and surely causes the diastolic dysfunction central to the condition. This may be a direct effect via high excess adipose tissue or an indirect effect via pro-inflammatory pathways.

GLP-1 agonists and the dual-acting GIP/GLP1 agonist tirzepatide have proven efficacy for weight loss. Semaglutide has previously been shown to improve quality of life and physical functioning in two small trials of patients with HFpEF and obesity. Semaglutide also reduced hard clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and these other conditions: chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

This class of drugs is costly. The combination of both high drug costs and highly prevalent conditions such as obesity and HFpEF forces clinicians to make both value and clinical judgments when translating evidence.

 

The SUMMIT Trial

The SUMMIT trial aimed to evaluate tirzepatide’s effect on typical heart failure events, health status and functional capacity in patients with obesity and HFpEF. A total of 731 patients were randomly assigned to receive to tirzepatide or placebo.

Investigators chose two co-primary endpoints. The first was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and worsening heart failure events—the latter could be a hospitalization for heart failure, a visit for intravenous diuretics, or intensification of oral diuretics. The idea behind this rather unique composite was to capture all heart failure events. The second co-primary endpoint was a change in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS) at 1 year.

Characteristics of the patients included an average age of 65 years, 55% were female, the average body mass index was 38, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 61% (the minimum for trial entry was 50%). Just under half had been hospitalized for heart failure in the year before trial entry.

 

Tirzepatide Results

The primary outcome of CV death and first heart failure event occurred in 36 patients (9.9%) in the tirzepatide group and 56 patients (15.3%) in the placebo group, for a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P =.026).

The 5.4% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint was completely driven by lower rates of heart failure events (8% vs 14.2%). CV death was actually higher in the tirzepatide arm, but the number of deaths was low in both arms (8 vs 5).

The rate of hospitalizations due to heart failure was lower with tirzepatide (3.3% vs 7.1%), as was intensification of oral diuretics (4.7% vs 5.7%).

The second co-primary endpoint of change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS favored tirzepatide.

Other secondary endpoints also favored tirzepatide: longer 6-minute walk distance, greater change in body weight (-11.6%), and lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels and systolic blood pressure (-4.7 mm Hg).

 

Authors’ Conclusions and Expert Comments

At the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, the primary investigator Milton Packer, MD, said SUMMIT was the first trial of patients with obesity and HFpEF that had major heart failure outcomes as the primary endpoint. And that tirzepatide changed the clinical trajectory of the disease.

Jennifer Ho, MD, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said, “This really is a practice-changing trial and cements this type of therapy as one of the cornerstones of obesity and HFpEF treatment.”

Other experts cited a recently published pooled analysis of semaglutide trials looking specifically at patients with HFpEF and found lower rates of HF events with the GLP-1 agonist.

The SUMMIT trial results were covered in 53 news outlets— nearly all with glowing headlines.

 

My Six Concerns With SUMMIT

The trial delivered statistically positive findings. What’s more, patients lost weight, and a greater than 11% weight loss difference is meaningful. Patients with a baseline weight of more than 100 kg who lose this much weight are bound to feel and function better.

The first problem comes when we ask whether the results are disease-modifying. There was no difference in CV death. And the number of hospitalizations for heart failure — the more standard endpoint — was low, at only 12 and 26, respectively. Contrast this with the DELIVER trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin in HFpEF where there were nearly 750 hospitalizations for heart failure and PARAGON-HF of sacubitril-valsartan vs valsartan in HFpEF, where there were nearly 1500. SUMMIT simply had too few events to make conclusions — a point Packer has made regarding AF ablation trials in patients with heart failure.

I have previously called GLP-1 drugs disease-modifying in patients with obesity and atherosclerotic disease. This is because the SELECT trial of semaglutide randomized more than 17,000 patients and recorded a 20% reduction in hard outcomes. And there were more than 1200 primary outcome events. SUMMIT does not come close to this measure.

The second issue is short follow-up. These were 65-year-old patients and with only 2 years of follow-up, it is hard to make conclusions regarding whether or not these drugs can provide long-term benefit.

The third issue is that SUMMIT authors don’t tell us the number of all-cause hospitalizations. I was part of a recently published meta-analysis of more than 100 heart failure trials that raised questions regarding the value of hospitalizations for heart failure as a surrogate for heart failure outcomes.

For instance, we found that in large trials there was great variability in the ability of a reduction in HF hospitalizations to predict a reduction in all-cause hospitalization. In small trials, such as SUMMIT, it would likely be impossible to predict how the reduction in HF hospitalization would predict all-cause hospitalization. I believe all-cause hospitalization is a more inclusive endpoint because it is bias free; it captures benefits and potential harms of the therapy; and it is patient-centered, because patients probably do not care what type of hospitalization they avoid.

The fourth issue with SUMMIT is the difficulty in maintaining blinding, which reduces confidence in outcomes that require clinical decisions or patient judgments. Owing to gastrointestinal symptoms, decreased appetite, and weight loss, patients on this class of drugs are very likely to know their treatment assignment. This is a criticism of not only SUMMIT but all GLP-1 agonist trials. The fact that blinding is difficult to maintain argues for choosing endpoints less susceptible to bias, such as CV death or all-cause hospitalization.

Proponents of tirzepatide for this indication might argue that unblinding is less of an issue because of objective endpoints such as biomarkers. And they have a point, but nearly all other endpoints, especially the co-primary endpoint of KCCQ-CSS, are largely susceptible to bias.

The fifth and main problem comes in translating this evidence in the clinic. Should doctors give up on nondrug means of weight loss? All of the positive outcome trials in this class of drugs have also shown weight loss. I believe we should take these data and use them to re-invigorate our advocacy for weight loss without medication. I know the standard answer to this proposal is nihilism: It just will not work. And I cannot deny that we have failed previously in our efforts to help patients lose weight. But perhaps now, with the vast amount of data, we can be more persuasive. Imagine a world where key opinion leaders made weight loss the message rather than prescription of a drug.

Finally, if you approach SUMMIT from the view of a regulator, with its small numbers of outcome events and bias-susceptible endpoints, you cannot allow a disease-modifying claim. For that we would need a properly powered trial that shows that the drug reduces both CV death and all-cause hospitalization.

In the end, SUMMIT is not close to changing treatment norms in patients with HFpEF. As evidence-based clinicians, we should demand more from our partners in industry and academia.

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

 

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