User login
‘Unheard of’ PAH improvement with novel drug: STELLAR
NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.
Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,
“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm−5 reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.
“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.
Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH
Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.
“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.
But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.
The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%
STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.
In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.
The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.
The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.
The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.
“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.
Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH
Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.
“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”
Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.
Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.
STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.
Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,
“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm−5 reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.
“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.
Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH
Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.
“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.
But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.
The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%
STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.
In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.
The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.
The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.
The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.
“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.
Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH
Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.
“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”
Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.
Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.
STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.
Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,
“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm−5 reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.
“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.
Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH
Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.
“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.
“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.
But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.
The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%
STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.
In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.
The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.
The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.
The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.
“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.
Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH
Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.
“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”
Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.
Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.
STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.
At ACC 2023
Alzheimer's Disease Presentation
The 2023 ‘Meddy’ awards
Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...
Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster
M*A*S*H (1970)
The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.
Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment
Field of Dreams (1989)
When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.
Most unethical doctor
Elvis (2022)
No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”
Best self-use of a defibrillator
Casino Royale (2006)
We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.
Best worst patient lying about an injury
Tár (2022)
Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.
Best therapy for a speech disorder
The King’s Speech (2010)
Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...
Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster
M*A*S*H (1970)
The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.
Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment
Field of Dreams (1989)
When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.
Most unethical doctor
Elvis (2022)
No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”
Best self-use of a defibrillator
Casino Royale (2006)
We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.
Best worst patient lying about an injury
Tár (2022)
Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.
Best therapy for a speech disorder
The King’s Speech (2010)
Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...
Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster
M*A*S*H (1970)
The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.
Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment
Field of Dreams (1989)
When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.
Most unethical doctor
Elvis (2022)
No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”
Best self-use of a defibrillator
Casino Royale (2006)
We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.
Best worst patient lying about an injury
Tár (2022)
Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.
Best therapy for a speech disorder
The King’s Speech (2010)
Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A surfing PA leads an intense beach rescue
There’s a famous surf spot called Old Man’s on San Onofre beach in north San Diego County. It has nice, gentle waves that people say are similar to Waikiki in Hawaii. Since the waves are so forgiving, a lot of older people surf there. I taught my boys and some friends how to surf there. Everyone enjoys the water. It’s just a really fun vibe.
In September of 2008, I was at Old Man’s surfing with friends. After a while, I told them I was going to catch the next wave in. When I rode the wave to the beach, I saw an older guy waving his arms above his head, trying to get the lifeguard’s attention. His friend was lying on the sand at the water’s edge, unconscious. The lifeguards were about 200 yards away in their truck. Since it was off-season, they weren’t in the nearby towers.
I threw my board down on the sand and ran over. The guy was blue in the face and had some secretions around his mouth. He wasn’t breathing and had no pulse. I told his friend to get the lifeguards.
I gave two rescue breaths, and then started CPR. The waves were still lapping against his feet. I could sense people gathering around, so I said, “Okay, we’re going to be hooking him up to electricity, let’s get him out of the water.” I didn’t want him in contact with the water that could potentially transmit that electricity to anyone else.
Many hands reached in and we dragged him up to dry sand. When we pulled down his wetsuit, I saw an old midline sternotomy incision on his chest and I thought: “Oh man, he’s got a cardiac history.” I said, “I need a towel,” and suddenly there was a towel in my hand. I dried him off and continued doing CPR.
The lifeguard truck pulled up and in my peripheral vision I saw two lifeguards running over with their first aid kit. While doing compressions, I yelled over my shoulder: “Bring your AED! Get your oxygen!” They ran back to the truck.
At that point, a young woman came up and said: “I’m a nuclear medicine tech. What can I do?” I asked her to help me keep his airway open. I positioned her at his head, and she did a chin lift.
The two lifeguards came running back. One was very experienced, and he started getting the AED ready and putting the pads on. The other lifeguard was younger. He was nervous and shaking, trying to figure out how to turn on the oxygen tank. I told him: “Buddy, you better figure that out real fast.”
The AED said there was a shockable rhythm so it delivered a shock. I started compressions again. The younger lifeguard finally figured out how to turn on the oxygen tank. Now we had oxygen, a bag valve mask, and an AED. We let our training take over and quickly melded together as an efficient team.
Two minutes later the AED analyzed the rhythm and administered another shock. More compressions. Then another shock and compressions. I had so much adrenaline going through my body that I wasn’t even getting tired.
By then I had been doing compressions for a good 10 minutes. Finally, I asked: “Hey, when are the paramedics going to get here?” And the lifeguard said: “They’re on their way.” But we were all the way down on a very remote section of beach.
We did CPR on him for what seemed like eternity, probably only 15-20 minutes. Sometimes he would get a pulse back and pink up, and we could stop and get a break. But then I would see him become cyanotic. His pulse would become thready, so I would start again.
The paramedics finally arrived and loaded him into the ambulance. He was still blue in the face, and I honestly thought he would probably not survive. I said a quick prayer for him as they drove off.
For the next week, I wondered what happened to him. The next time I was at the beach, I approached some older guys and said: “Hey, I was doing CPR on a guy here last week. Do you know what happened to him?” They gave me a thumbs up sign and said: “He’s doing great!” I was amazed!
While at the beach, I saw the nuclear med tech who helped with the airway and oxygen. She told me she’d called her hospital after the incident and asked if they had received a full arrest from the beach. They said: “Yes, he was sitting up, awake and talking when he came through the door.”
A few weeks later, the local paper called and wanted to do an interview and get some photos on the beach. We set up a time to meet, and I told the reporter that if he ever found out who the guy was, I would love to meet him. I had two reasons: First, because I had done mouth-to-mouth on him and I wanted to make sure he didn’t have any communicable diseases. Second, and this is a little weirder, I wanted to find out if he had an out-of-body experience. They fascinate me.
The reporter called back a few minutes later and said: “You’ll never believe this – while I was talking to you, my phone beeped with another call. The person left a message, and it was the guy. He wants to meet you.” I was amazed at the coincidence that he would call at exactly the same time.
Later that day, we all met at the beach. I gave him a big hug and told him he looked a lot better than the last time I saw him. He now had a pacemaker/defibrillator. I found out he was married and had three teenage boys (who still have a father). He told me on the day of the incident he developed chest pain, weakness, and shortness of breath while surfing, so he came in and sat down at the water’s edge to catch his breath. That was the last thing he remembered.
When I told him I did mouth-to-mouth on him, he laughed and reassured me that he didn’t have any contagious diseases. Then I asked him about an out-of-body experience, like hovering above his body and watching the CPR. “Did you see us doing that?” I asked. He said: “No, nothing but black. The next thing I remember is waking up in the back of the ambulance, and the paramedic asked me, ‘how does it feel to come back from the dead?’ ” He answered: “I think I have to throw up.”
He was cleared to surf 6 weeks later, and I thought it would be fun to surf with him. But when he started paddling out, he said his defibrillator went off, so he has now retired to golf.
I’ve been a PA in the emergency room for 28 years. I’ve done CPR for so long it’s instinctive for me. It really saves lives, especially with the AED. When people say: “You saved his life,” I say: “No, I didn’t. I just kept him alive and let the AED do its job.”
Ms. Westbrook-May is an emergency medicine physician assistant in Newport Beach, Calif.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There’s a famous surf spot called Old Man’s on San Onofre beach in north San Diego County. It has nice, gentle waves that people say are similar to Waikiki in Hawaii. Since the waves are so forgiving, a lot of older people surf there. I taught my boys and some friends how to surf there. Everyone enjoys the water. It’s just a really fun vibe.
In September of 2008, I was at Old Man’s surfing with friends. After a while, I told them I was going to catch the next wave in. When I rode the wave to the beach, I saw an older guy waving his arms above his head, trying to get the lifeguard’s attention. His friend was lying on the sand at the water’s edge, unconscious. The lifeguards were about 200 yards away in their truck. Since it was off-season, they weren’t in the nearby towers.
I threw my board down on the sand and ran over. The guy was blue in the face and had some secretions around his mouth. He wasn’t breathing and had no pulse. I told his friend to get the lifeguards.
I gave two rescue breaths, and then started CPR. The waves were still lapping against his feet. I could sense people gathering around, so I said, “Okay, we’re going to be hooking him up to electricity, let’s get him out of the water.” I didn’t want him in contact with the water that could potentially transmit that electricity to anyone else.
Many hands reached in and we dragged him up to dry sand. When we pulled down his wetsuit, I saw an old midline sternotomy incision on his chest and I thought: “Oh man, he’s got a cardiac history.” I said, “I need a towel,” and suddenly there was a towel in my hand. I dried him off and continued doing CPR.
The lifeguard truck pulled up and in my peripheral vision I saw two lifeguards running over with their first aid kit. While doing compressions, I yelled over my shoulder: “Bring your AED! Get your oxygen!” They ran back to the truck.
At that point, a young woman came up and said: “I’m a nuclear medicine tech. What can I do?” I asked her to help me keep his airway open. I positioned her at his head, and she did a chin lift.
The two lifeguards came running back. One was very experienced, and he started getting the AED ready and putting the pads on. The other lifeguard was younger. He was nervous and shaking, trying to figure out how to turn on the oxygen tank. I told him: “Buddy, you better figure that out real fast.”
The AED said there was a shockable rhythm so it delivered a shock. I started compressions again. The younger lifeguard finally figured out how to turn on the oxygen tank. Now we had oxygen, a bag valve mask, and an AED. We let our training take over and quickly melded together as an efficient team.
Two minutes later the AED analyzed the rhythm and administered another shock. More compressions. Then another shock and compressions. I had so much adrenaline going through my body that I wasn’t even getting tired.
By then I had been doing compressions for a good 10 minutes. Finally, I asked: “Hey, when are the paramedics going to get here?” And the lifeguard said: “They’re on their way.” But we were all the way down on a very remote section of beach.
We did CPR on him for what seemed like eternity, probably only 15-20 minutes. Sometimes he would get a pulse back and pink up, and we could stop and get a break. But then I would see him become cyanotic. His pulse would become thready, so I would start again.
The paramedics finally arrived and loaded him into the ambulance. He was still blue in the face, and I honestly thought he would probably not survive. I said a quick prayer for him as they drove off.
For the next week, I wondered what happened to him. The next time I was at the beach, I approached some older guys and said: “Hey, I was doing CPR on a guy here last week. Do you know what happened to him?” They gave me a thumbs up sign and said: “He’s doing great!” I was amazed!
While at the beach, I saw the nuclear med tech who helped with the airway and oxygen. She told me she’d called her hospital after the incident and asked if they had received a full arrest from the beach. They said: “Yes, he was sitting up, awake and talking when he came through the door.”
A few weeks later, the local paper called and wanted to do an interview and get some photos on the beach. We set up a time to meet, and I told the reporter that if he ever found out who the guy was, I would love to meet him. I had two reasons: First, because I had done mouth-to-mouth on him and I wanted to make sure he didn’t have any communicable diseases. Second, and this is a little weirder, I wanted to find out if he had an out-of-body experience. They fascinate me.
The reporter called back a few minutes later and said: “You’ll never believe this – while I was talking to you, my phone beeped with another call. The person left a message, and it was the guy. He wants to meet you.” I was amazed at the coincidence that he would call at exactly the same time.
Later that day, we all met at the beach. I gave him a big hug and told him he looked a lot better than the last time I saw him. He now had a pacemaker/defibrillator. I found out he was married and had three teenage boys (who still have a father). He told me on the day of the incident he developed chest pain, weakness, and shortness of breath while surfing, so he came in and sat down at the water’s edge to catch his breath. That was the last thing he remembered.
When I told him I did mouth-to-mouth on him, he laughed and reassured me that he didn’t have any contagious diseases. Then I asked him about an out-of-body experience, like hovering above his body and watching the CPR. “Did you see us doing that?” I asked. He said: “No, nothing but black. The next thing I remember is waking up in the back of the ambulance, and the paramedic asked me, ‘how does it feel to come back from the dead?’ ” He answered: “I think I have to throw up.”
He was cleared to surf 6 weeks later, and I thought it would be fun to surf with him. But when he started paddling out, he said his defibrillator went off, so he has now retired to golf.
I’ve been a PA in the emergency room for 28 years. I’ve done CPR for so long it’s instinctive for me. It really saves lives, especially with the AED. When people say: “You saved his life,” I say: “No, I didn’t. I just kept him alive and let the AED do its job.”
Ms. Westbrook-May is an emergency medicine physician assistant in Newport Beach, Calif.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There’s a famous surf spot called Old Man’s on San Onofre beach in north San Diego County. It has nice, gentle waves that people say are similar to Waikiki in Hawaii. Since the waves are so forgiving, a lot of older people surf there. I taught my boys and some friends how to surf there. Everyone enjoys the water. It’s just a really fun vibe.
In September of 2008, I was at Old Man’s surfing with friends. After a while, I told them I was going to catch the next wave in. When I rode the wave to the beach, I saw an older guy waving his arms above his head, trying to get the lifeguard’s attention. His friend was lying on the sand at the water’s edge, unconscious. The lifeguards were about 200 yards away in their truck. Since it was off-season, they weren’t in the nearby towers.
I threw my board down on the sand and ran over. The guy was blue in the face and had some secretions around his mouth. He wasn’t breathing and had no pulse. I told his friend to get the lifeguards.
I gave two rescue breaths, and then started CPR. The waves were still lapping against his feet. I could sense people gathering around, so I said, “Okay, we’re going to be hooking him up to electricity, let’s get him out of the water.” I didn’t want him in contact with the water that could potentially transmit that electricity to anyone else.
Many hands reached in and we dragged him up to dry sand. When we pulled down his wetsuit, I saw an old midline sternotomy incision on his chest and I thought: “Oh man, he’s got a cardiac history.” I said, “I need a towel,” and suddenly there was a towel in my hand. I dried him off and continued doing CPR.
The lifeguard truck pulled up and in my peripheral vision I saw two lifeguards running over with their first aid kit. While doing compressions, I yelled over my shoulder: “Bring your AED! Get your oxygen!” They ran back to the truck.
At that point, a young woman came up and said: “I’m a nuclear medicine tech. What can I do?” I asked her to help me keep his airway open. I positioned her at his head, and she did a chin lift.
The two lifeguards came running back. One was very experienced, and he started getting the AED ready and putting the pads on. The other lifeguard was younger. He was nervous and shaking, trying to figure out how to turn on the oxygen tank. I told him: “Buddy, you better figure that out real fast.”
The AED said there was a shockable rhythm so it delivered a shock. I started compressions again. The younger lifeguard finally figured out how to turn on the oxygen tank. Now we had oxygen, a bag valve mask, and an AED. We let our training take over and quickly melded together as an efficient team.
Two minutes later the AED analyzed the rhythm and administered another shock. More compressions. Then another shock and compressions. I had so much adrenaline going through my body that I wasn’t even getting tired.
By then I had been doing compressions for a good 10 minutes. Finally, I asked: “Hey, when are the paramedics going to get here?” And the lifeguard said: “They’re on their way.” But we were all the way down on a very remote section of beach.
We did CPR on him for what seemed like eternity, probably only 15-20 minutes. Sometimes he would get a pulse back and pink up, and we could stop and get a break. But then I would see him become cyanotic. His pulse would become thready, so I would start again.
The paramedics finally arrived and loaded him into the ambulance. He was still blue in the face, and I honestly thought he would probably not survive. I said a quick prayer for him as they drove off.
For the next week, I wondered what happened to him. The next time I was at the beach, I approached some older guys and said: “Hey, I was doing CPR on a guy here last week. Do you know what happened to him?” They gave me a thumbs up sign and said: “He’s doing great!” I was amazed!
While at the beach, I saw the nuclear med tech who helped with the airway and oxygen. She told me she’d called her hospital after the incident and asked if they had received a full arrest from the beach. They said: “Yes, he was sitting up, awake and talking when he came through the door.”
A few weeks later, the local paper called and wanted to do an interview and get some photos on the beach. We set up a time to meet, and I told the reporter that if he ever found out who the guy was, I would love to meet him. I had two reasons: First, because I had done mouth-to-mouth on him and I wanted to make sure he didn’t have any communicable diseases. Second, and this is a little weirder, I wanted to find out if he had an out-of-body experience. They fascinate me.
The reporter called back a few minutes later and said: “You’ll never believe this – while I was talking to you, my phone beeped with another call. The person left a message, and it was the guy. He wants to meet you.” I was amazed at the coincidence that he would call at exactly the same time.
Later that day, we all met at the beach. I gave him a big hug and told him he looked a lot better than the last time I saw him. He now had a pacemaker/defibrillator. I found out he was married and had three teenage boys (who still have a father). He told me on the day of the incident he developed chest pain, weakness, and shortness of breath while surfing, so he came in and sat down at the water’s edge to catch his breath. That was the last thing he remembered.
When I told him I did mouth-to-mouth on him, he laughed and reassured me that he didn’t have any contagious diseases. Then I asked him about an out-of-body experience, like hovering above his body and watching the CPR. “Did you see us doing that?” I asked. He said: “No, nothing but black. The next thing I remember is waking up in the back of the ambulance, and the paramedic asked me, ‘how does it feel to come back from the dead?’ ” He answered: “I think I have to throw up.”
He was cleared to surf 6 weeks later, and I thought it would be fun to surf with him. But when he started paddling out, he said his defibrillator went off, so he has now retired to golf.
I’ve been a PA in the emergency room for 28 years. I’ve done CPR for so long it’s instinctive for me. It really saves lives, especially with the AED. When people say: “You saved his life,” I say: “No, I didn’t. I just kept him alive and let the AED do its job.”
Ms. Westbrook-May is an emergency medicine physician assistant in Newport Beach, Calif.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
'Zombie viruses': Fascinating and a little frightening
Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.
A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses.
The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.
The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.
The second question: What does it mean?
No humans were harmed in this study
The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.
The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.
“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”
Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time.
“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”
That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.
Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
But what if ...
So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?
“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”
That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.
“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”
And not all organisms are harmful.
“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”
Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.
For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.
If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.
“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.
A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses.
The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.
The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.
The second question: What does it mean?
No humans were harmed in this study
The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.
The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.
“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”
Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time.
“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”
That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.
Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
But what if ...
So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?
“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”
That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.
“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”
And not all organisms are harmful.
“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”
Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.
For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.
If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.
“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.
A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses.
The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.
The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.
The second question: What does it mean?
No humans were harmed in this study
The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.
The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.
“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”
Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time.
“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”
That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.
Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
But what if ...
So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?
“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”
That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.
“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”
And not all organisms are harmful.
“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”
Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.
For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.
If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.
“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Endurance exercise tied to more coronary atherosclerosis
In the Master@Heart study, lifelong endurance athletes had more coronary plaques, including more noncalcified plaques, than fit and healthy individuals with a similarly low cardiovascular risk profile.
The study was presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. It was also simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.
“We consistently see higher plaque burden in lifelong endurance athletes. This is regardless of the plaque type, whether it is calcified, mixed, noncalcified, in the proximal segment or causing more than 50% stenosis,” concluded Ruben De Bosscher, MD, Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), during his presentation.
The researchers suggested that all the information to date suggests there may be a “reverse J-shaped” dose-response relationship between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.
Dr. De Bosscher added that “the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. As soon as you do a little bit of exercise – just brisk walking or jogging up to 3 hours a week – it seems that’s where you get the most benefit. And after that, we tend to see an increase in coronary plaque burden.”
The discussant of the study at the ACC session, Michael Emery, MD, codirector of the Sports Cardiology Center at the Cleveland Clinic, asked how this information should be translated into advice for the general public, given that it is known that endurance athletes show much improved mortality.
“That is a very good question,” Dr. De Bosscher replied. “Yes, we do see less events and adverse outcomes in endurance athletes, but that is compared to the whole population, including those that are unhealthy and do not exercise.
“If we only look at healthy individuals who do exercise but at varying levels, the question is, do we then see the same relationship?” he asked. “There is increasing evidence that there may be a point of diminished returns – and at a certain point, an increased cardiovascular risk is seen in endurance athletes.”
On advice to the public, Dr. De Bosscher added, “one of the main findings here is that, despite having a very healthy lifestyle style and exercising a lot, no one is granted immunity to coronary atherosclerosis. It would seem that the most benefit occurs in individuals doing a moderate amount of exercise – up to about 3 hours a week.”
In a comment, Dr. Emery noted: “This continues to be a ‘hot topic,’ although I continue to be underwhelmed, given a lack of hard outcomes, and I worry about the wrong take-home message being sent, that too much exercise will do more harm than good.”
He added that fitness still matters regardless of calcium score, and he would not advise people to stop exercising, because “the better your fitness, the better the outcome.”
However, he acknowledged that “the study does nicely illustrate that exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear, honestly).”
Also commenting, Paul D. Thompson, MD, Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, who has studied the cardiac implications of exercise for many years, said: “The problem we have in the U.S. and in most developed countries is not too much exercise but rather that most people don’t exercise very much at all.”
He noted that the Master@Heart study as an “important contribution” to the field.
“We have seen in previous trials that lifelong endurance athletes appear to have more deposition of cholesterol in their coronary arteries than you would expect,” he said. “But, while prior studies suggested that most of the deposits in endurance athletes were the safer type of highly calcified plaques, this study shows that the plaques in endurance athletes are not quite as benign as we had previously thought.”
It’s not clear what this means though, he added, because “despite these findings, it’s pretty clear that endurance athletes live longer than most people. But do they live longer because of the amount of exercise they do or because they are just hardier than the rest of us?”
He does not believe the study should be interpreted to mean that endurance exercise is dangerous. “We don’t have great evidence for that. This is a finding in a coronary artery. We don’t have outcome data.”
However, he added, “it doesn’t seem like you have to do a lot of extreme sport to get the cardiovascular benefits of exercise. All the studies show that the greatest benefits happen in people who go from doing very little to doing a moderate amount of exercise. Then it seems to plateau.”
Dr. Thompson pointed out that the most recent physical activity guidelines in the United States recommend between 150 and 300 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous activity, such as running.
But he does not believe this study should put people off participating in endurance exercise, noting that many individuals engage in high levels of vigorous exercise for other reasons, not necessarily for their cardiovascular health.
“If people want to do more – for competitive reasons or if it makes them feel good – I say go ahead and do it,” Dr. Thompson added. “You should enjoy your life. But if you’re doing high levels of endurance exercise for your health and you’re miserable doing it, you may be wasting your time, as it doesn’t look as these more extreme levels of exercise do you any good. Does it do you any harm? We don’t have evidence yet to conclude that.”
In his presentation, Dr. De Bosscher noted that previous studies have reported higher calcium scores in athletes as well as more coronary plaques, compared with control persons. But the atherosclerotic lesions observed in the athletes were predominantly calcified plaques that were considered more stable and less prone to rupture, whereas nonathletes had predominantly mixed plaques that were considered less stable and more prone to rupture.
He pointed out, however, that these studies had limitations in that they included some individuals with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking and intake of statins or antihypertensive drugs; they did not always assess the association between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis in a dose-response relationship; and while they reported the relative difference in plaque types, they didn’t report the absolute prevalence in calcified, noncalcified, and mixed plaques.
The Master@Heart study aimed to look at this question in a more comprehensive way.
The observational cohort study evaluated coronary atherosclerosis in 191 lifelong master endurance athletes, 191 late-onset athletes (endurance sports initiation after age 30 years), and 176 healthy nonathletes who engaged in no more than 3 hours a week of exercise. All participants were male and had a low cardiovascular risk profile. The median age was 55 in the three groups.
Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was used to quantify fitness. Lifelong and late-onset athletes had higher percentage predicted VO2max than nonathletes (159 vs. 155 vs. 122).
There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to age, weight, blood pressure cholesterol levels, or hemoglobin A1c levels. While the control group had a healthy body mass index and body fat percentage (19%), both groups of athletes were significantly leaner (body fat percentage, 14%-15%).
The exercise performed by the lifelong and late-onset endurance athletes was similar – mainly cycling and running. The endurance athletes reported an average of 10-11 hours of exercise per week, compared with 1 hour per week for the control persons. Only 22% of the control group reported engaging in no exercise at all; the others reported jogging, cycling, or engaging in nonendurance exercise, such as tennis.
Results showed that the overall coronary plaque burden assessed by segment stenosis score and segment-involvement score was higher among lifelong athletes than control persons (between-group difference, 0.86 and 0.65, respectively).
In comparison to control persons, lifelong endurance sport participation was associated with having one or more of each of the following, compared with a healthy nonathletic lifestyle:
- More than one coronary plaque (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.94)
- More than one proximal plaque (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.11)
- More than one calcified plaque (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.49)
- More than one calcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.28-3.35)
- More than one noncalcified plaque (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.12-3.40)
- More than one noncalcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.39-5.65)
- More than one mixed plaque (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-2.99)
In comparison with late-onset athletes, at least 50% stenosis in any coronary segment (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.20-6.50) and at least 50% stenosis in a proximal segment (OR, 5.92; 95% CI, 1.22 – 28.80) were more prevalent among lifelong athletes.
Vulnerable plaques, as defined by the presence of at least two high-risk features, were uncommon in all groups, but a lifelong athletic lifestyle was associated with a lower prevalence (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98).
In their article in the European Heart Journal, the researchers noted that the Master@Heart study is the largest and most comprehensive study to assess the dose-response relationship between intensive endurance exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.
“The findings do not support the hypothesis that highly trained endurance athletes have a more benign plaque composition to explain their lower risk of cardiovascular events compared to nonathletes,” they wrote.
“As studies on the impact of physical activity in the upper range are lacking, our data open the question on whether coronary events are indeed less prevalent in this high-end exercise cohort, and if that is the case, on what explains the paradox,” they concluded. “More and longitudinal research at the higher end of the endurance exercise spectrum is definitely needed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the Master@Heart study, lifelong endurance athletes had more coronary plaques, including more noncalcified plaques, than fit and healthy individuals with a similarly low cardiovascular risk profile.
The study was presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. It was also simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.
“We consistently see higher plaque burden in lifelong endurance athletes. This is regardless of the plaque type, whether it is calcified, mixed, noncalcified, in the proximal segment or causing more than 50% stenosis,” concluded Ruben De Bosscher, MD, Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), during his presentation.
The researchers suggested that all the information to date suggests there may be a “reverse J-shaped” dose-response relationship between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.
Dr. De Bosscher added that “the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. As soon as you do a little bit of exercise – just brisk walking or jogging up to 3 hours a week – it seems that’s where you get the most benefit. And after that, we tend to see an increase in coronary plaque burden.”
The discussant of the study at the ACC session, Michael Emery, MD, codirector of the Sports Cardiology Center at the Cleveland Clinic, asked how this information should be translated into advice for the general public, given that it is known that endurance athletes show much improved mortality.
“That is a very good question,” Dr. De Bosscher replied. “Yes, we do see less events and adverse outcomes in endurance athletes, but that is compared to the whole population, including those that are unhealthy and do not exercise.
“If we only look at healthy individuals who do exercise but at varying levels, the question is, do we then see the same relationship?” he asked. “There is increasing evidence that there may be a point of diminished returns – and at a certain point, an increased cardiovascular risk is seen in endurance athletes.”
On advice to the public, Dr. De Bosscher added, “one of the main findings here is that, despite having a very healthy lifestyle style and exercising a lot, no one is granted immunity to coronary atherosclerosis. It would seem that the most benefit occurs in individuals doing a moderate amount of exercise – up to about 3 hours a week.”
In a comment, Dr. Emery noted: “This continues to be a ‘hot topic,’ although I continue to be underwhelmed, given a lack of hard outcomes, and I worry about the wrong take-home message being sent, that too much exercise will do more harm than good.”
He added that fitness still matters regardless of calcium score, and he would not advise people to stop exercising, because “the better your fitness, the better the outcome.”
However, he acknowledged that “the study does nicely illustrate that exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear, honestly).”
Also commenting, Paul D. Thompson, MD, Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, who has studied the cardiac implications of exercise for many years, said: “The problem we have in the U.S. and in most developed countries is not too much exercise but rather that most people don’t exercise very much at all.”
He noted that the Master@Heart study as an “important contribution” to the field.
“We have seen in previous trials that lifelong endurance athletes appear to have more deposition of cholesterol in their coronary arteries than you would expect,” he said. “But, while prior studies suggested that most of the deposits in endurance athletes were the safer type of highly calcified plaques, this study shows that the plaques in endurance athletes are not quite as benign as we had previously thought.”
It’s not clear what this means though, he added, because “despite these findings, it’s pretty clear that endurance athletes live longer than most people. But do they live longer because of the amount of exercise they do or because they are just hardier than the rest of us?”
He does not believe the study should be interpreted to mean that endurance exercise is dangerous. “We don’t have great evidence for that. This is a finding in a coronary artery. We don’t have outcome data.”
However, he added, “it doesn’t seem like you have to do a lot of extreme sport to get the cardiovascular benefits of exercise. All the studies show that the greatest benefits happen in people who go from doing very little to doing a moderate amount of exercise. Then it seems to plateau.”
Dr. Thompson pointed out that the most recent physical activity guidelines in the United States recommend between 150 and 300 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous activity, such as running.
But he does not believe this study should put people off participating in endurance exercise, noting that many individuals engage in high levels of vigorous exercise for other reasons, not necessarily for their cardiovascular health.
“If people want to do more – for competitive reasons or if it makes them feel good – I say go ahead and do it,” Dr. Thompson added. “You should enjoy your life. But if you’re doing high levels of endurance exercise for your health and you’re miserable doing it, you may be wasting your time, as it doesn’t look as these more extreme levels of exercise do you any good. Does it do you any harm? We don’t have evidence yet to conclude that.”
In his presentation, Dr. De Bosscher noted that previous studies have reported higher calcium scores in athletes as well as more coronary plaques, compared with control persons. But the atherosclerotic lesions observed in the athletes were predominantly calcified plaques that were considered more stable and less prone to rupture, whereas nonathletes had predominantly mixed plaques that were considered less stable and more prone to rupture.
He pointed out, however, that these studies had limitations in that they included some individuals with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking and intake of statins or antihypertensive drugs; they did not always assess the association between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis in a dose-response relationship; and while they reported the relative difference in plaque types, they didn’t report the absolute prevalence in calcified, noncalcified, and mixed plaques.
The Master@Heart study aimed to look at this question in a more comprehensive way.
The observational cohort study evaluated coronary atherosclerosis in 191 lifelong master endurance athletes, 191 late-onset athletes (endurance sports initiation after age 30 years), and 176 healthy nonathletes who engaged in no more than 3 hours a week of exercise. All participants were male and had a low cardiovascular risk profile. The median age was 55 in the three groups.
Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was used to quantify fitness. Lifelong and late-onset athletes had higher percentage predicted VO2max than nonathletes (159 vs. 155 vs. 122).
There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to age, weight, blood pressure cholesterol levels, or hemoglobin A1c levels. While the control group had a healthy body mass index and body fat percentage (19%), both groups of athletes were significantly leaner (body fat percentage, 14%-15%).
The exercise performed by the lifelong and late-onset endurance athletes was similar – mainly cycling and running. The endurance athletes reported an average of 10-11 hours of exercise per week, compared with 1 hour per week for the control persons. Only 22% of the control group reported engaging in no exercise at all; the others reported jogging, cycling, or engaging in nonendurance exercise, such as tennis.
Results showed that the overall coronary plaque burden assessed by segment stenosis score and segment-involvement score was higher among lifelong athletes than control persons (between-group difference, 0.86 and 0.65, respectively).
In comparison to control persons, lifelong endurance sport participation was associated with having one or more of each of the following, compared with a healthy nonathletic lifestyle:
- More than one coronary plaque (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.94)
- More than one proximal plaque (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.11)
- More than one calcified plaque (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.49)
- More than one calcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.28-3.35)
- More than one noncalcified plaque (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.12-3.40)
- More than one noncalcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.39-5.65)
- More than one mixed plaque (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-2.99)
In comparison with late-onset athletes, at least 50% stenosis in any coronary segment (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.20-6.50) and at least 50% stenosis in a proximal segment (OR, 5.92; 95% CI, 1.22 – 28.80) were more prevalent among lifelong athletes.
Vulnerable plaques, as defined by the presence of at least two high-risk features, were uncommon in all groups, but a lifelong athletic lifestyle was associated with a lower prevalence (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98).
In their article in the European Heart Journal, the researchers noted that the Master@Heart study is the largest and most comprehensive study to assess the dose-response relationship between intensive endurance exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.
“The findings do not support the hypothesis that highly trained endurance athletes have a more benign plaque composition to explain their lower risk of cardiovascular events compared to nonathletes,” they wrote.
“As studies on the impact of physical activity in the upper range are lacking, our data open the question on whether coronary events are indeed less prevalent in this high-end exercise cohort, and if that is the case, on what explains the paradox,” they concluded. “More and longitudinal research at the higher end of the endurance exercise spectrum is definitely needed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the Master@Heart study, lifelong endurance athletes had more coronary plaques, including more noncalcified plaques, than fit and healthy individuals with a similarly low cardiovascular risk profile.
The study was presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. It was also simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.
“We consistently see higher plaque burden in lifelong endurance athletes. This is regardless of the plaque type, whether it is calcified, mixed, noncalcified, in the proximal segment or causing more than 50% stenosis,” concluded Ruben De Bosscher, MD, Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), during his presentation.
The researchers suggested that all the information to date suggests there may be a “reverse J-shaped” dose-response relationship between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.
Dr. De Bosscher added that “the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. As soon as you do a little bit of exercise – just brisk walking or jogging up to 3 hours a week – it seems that’s where you get the most benefit. And after that, we tend to see an increase in coronary plaque burden.”
The discussant of the study at the ACC session, Michael Emery, MD, codirector of the Sports Cardiology Center at the Cleveland Clinic, asked how this information should be translated into advice for the general public, given that it is known that endurance athletes show much improved mortality.
“That is a very good question,” Dr. De Bosscher replied. “Yes, we do see less events and adverse outcomes in endurance athletes, but that is compared to the whole population, including those that are unhealthy and do not exercise.
“If we only look at healthy individuals who do exercise but at varying levels, the question is, do we then see the same relationship?” he asked. “There is increasing evidence that there may be a point of diminished returns – and at a certain point, an increased cardiovascular risk is seen in endurance athletes.”
On advice to the public, Dr. De Bosscher added, “one of the main findings here is that, despite having a very healthy lifestyle style and exercising a lot, no one is granted immunity to coronary atherosclerosis. It would seem that the most benefit occurs in individuals doing a moderate amount of exercise – up to about 3 hours a week.”
In a comment, Dr. Emery noted: “This continues to be a ‘hot topic,’ although I continue to be underwhelmed, given a lack of hard outcomes, and I worry about the wrong take-home message being sent, that too much exercise will do more harm than good.”
He added that fitness still matters regardless of calcium score, and he would not advise people to stop exercising, because “the better your fitness, the better the outcome.”
However, he acknowledged that “the study does nicely illustrate that exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear, honestly).”
Also commenting, Paul D. Thompson, MD, Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, who has studied the cardiac implications of exercise for many years, said: “The problem we have in the U.S. and in most developed countries is not too much exercise but rather that most people don’t exercise very much at all.”
He noted that the Master@Heart study as an “important contribution” to the field.
“We have seen in previous trials that lifelong endurance athletes appear to have more deposition of cholesterol in their coronary arteries than you would expect,” he said. “But, while prior studies suggested that most of the deposits in endurance athletes were the safer type of highly calcified plaques, this study shows that the plaques in endurance athletes are not quite as benign as we had previously thought.”
It’s not clear what this means though, he added, because “despite these findings, it’s pretty clear that endurance athletes live longer than most people. But do they live longer because of the amount of exercise they do or because they are just hardier than the rest of us?”
He does not believe the study should be interpreted to mean that endurance exercise is dangerous. “We don’t have great evidence for that. This is a finding in a coronary artery. We don’t have outcome data.”
However, he added, “it doesn’t seem like you have to do a lot of extreme sport to get the cardiovascular benefits of exercise. All the studies show that the greatest benefits happen in people who go from doing very little to doing a moderate amount of exercise. Then it seems to plateau.”
Dr. Thompson pointed out that the most recent physical activity guidelines in the United States recommend between 150 and 300 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous activity, such as running.
But he does not believe this study should put people off participating in endurance exercise, noting that many individuals engage in high levels of vigorous exercise for other reasons, not necessarily for their cardiovascular health.
“If people want to do more – for competitive reasons or if it makes them feel good – I say go ahead and do it,” Dr. Thompson added. “You should enjoy your life. But if you’re doing high levels of endurance exercise for your health and you’re miserable doing it, you may be wasting your time, as it doesn’t look as these more extreme levels of exercise do you any good. Does it do you any harm? We don’t have evidence yet to conclude that.”
In his presentation, Dr. De Bosscher noted that previous studies have reported higher calcium scores in athletes as well as more coronary plaques, compared with control persons. But the atherosclerotic lesions observed in the athletes were predominantly calcified plaques that were considered more stable and less prone to rupture, whereas nonathletes had predominantly mixed plaques that were considered less stable and more prone to rupture.
He pointed out, however, that these studies had limitations in that they included some individuals with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking and intake of statins or antihypertensive drugs; they did not always assess the association between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis in a dose-response relationship; and while they reported the relative difference in plaque types, they didn’t report the absolute prevalence in calcified, noncalcified, and mixed plaques.
The Master@Heart study aimed to look at this question in a more comprehensive way.
The observational cohort study evaluated coronary atherosclerosis in 191 lifelong master endurance athletes, 191 late-onset athletes (endurance sports initiation after age 30 years), and 176 healthy nonathletes who engaged in no more than 3 hours a week of exercise. All participants were male and had a low cardiovascular risk profile. The median age was 55 in the three groups.
Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was used to quantify fitness. Lifelong and late-onset athletes had higher percentage predicted VO2max than nonathletes (159 vs. 155 vs. 122).
There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to age, weight, blood pressure cholesterol levels, or hemoglobin A1c levels. While the control group had a healthy body mass index and body fat percentage (19%), both groups of athletes were significantly leaner (body fat percentage, 14%-15%).
The exercise performed by the lifelong and late-onset endurance athletes was similar – mainly cycling and running. The endurance athletes reported an average of 10-11 hours of exercise per week, compared with 1 hour per week for the control persons. Only 22% of the control group reported engaging in no exercise at all; the others reported jogging, cycling, or engaging in nonendurance exercise, such as tennis.
Results showed that the overall coronary plaque burden assessed by segment stenosis score and segment-involvement score was higher among lifelong athletes than control persons (between-group difference, 0.86 and 0.65, respectively).
In comparison to control persons, lifelong endurance sport participation was associated with having one or more of each of the following, compared with a healthy nonathletic lifestyle:
- More than one coronary plaque (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.94)
- More than one proximal plaque (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.11)
- More than one calcified plaque (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.49)
- More than one calcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.28-3.35)
- More than one noncalcified plaque (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.12-3.40)
- More than one noncalcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.39-5.65)
- More than one mixed plaque (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-2.99)
In comparison with late-onset athletes, at least 50% stenosis in any coronary segment (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.20-6.50) and at least 50% stenosis in a proximal segment (OR, 5.92; 95% CI, 1.22 – 28.80) were more prevalent among lifelong athletes.
Vulnerable plaques, as defined by the presence of at least two high-risk features, were uncommon in all groups, but a lifelong athletic lifestyle was associated with a lower prevalence (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98).
In their article in the European Heart Journal, the researchers noted that the Master@Heart study is the largest and most comprehensive study to assess the dose-response relationship between intensive endurance exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.
“The findings do not support the hypothesis that highly trained endurance athletes have a more benign plaque composition to explain their lower risk of cardiovascular events compared to nonathletes,” they wrote.
“As studies on the impact of physical activity in the upper range are lacking, our data open the question on whether coronary events are indeed less prevalent in this high-end exercise cohort, and if that is the case, on what explains the paradox,” they concluded. “More and longitudinal research at the higher end of the endurance exercise spectrum is definitely needed.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023