Cardiology

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

High-dose vitamin D supplementation may prevent atrial fibrillation (AFib) in healthy elderly men and women, a post hoc analysis from a randomized trial conducted in Finland suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Observational studies have suggested that vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk for AFib, but few randomized trials have looked at the effect of vitamin D supplementation on AFib incidence in healthy people.
• The study, a post hoc analysis from a trial that explored the effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer, included 2,495 vitamin D–sufficient healthy older adults, mean age 68.2 years, of whom 43% were women.
• Participants had been randomized to one of three groups in which they received vitamin D3 at either 1,600 IU/day or 3,200 IU/day, or placebo.
• Serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations were measured and data on incident AFib were gathered from national health records.

TAKEAWAY:

• Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 190 participants.
• Over a follow-up averaging 4.1 years, risk for incident AFib was reduced by 27% for participants who received the 1,600 IU/day dose, compared with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.02; P = .07), and by 32% for those in the 3,200 IU/day arm; HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.96; P = .03).
• The incident-AFib risk was reduced by 30% in a comparison of the two vitamin D groups combined versus the placebo group; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.53-0.94; P = .02).
• After exclusion of 122 participants who reported being on antiarrhythmic medications at baseline, the 1,600 IU/day group showed a significant 27% reduction in risk for AF (95% CI, 4%-58%; P = .03) and the 3,200 IU/day group a nonsignificant 30% (95% CI, 5%-53%; P = .08) reduction in risk.

IN PRACTICE:

High-dose vitamin D3 supplementation may reduce incidence of AFib in a generally healthy, largely vitamin D–sufficient elderly population, the authors proposed. Additional controlled trials are needed, especially in diverse populations.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Jyrki K. Virtanen, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, Kuopio, and colleagues. It was published in the American Heart Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

Atrial fibrillation was not prespecified as a primary outcome, and the results differ from those of other randomized controlled trials. Information on type of AFib (whether paroxysmal or nonparoxysmal, for example) wasn’t available nor were participants’ history of AFib. All participants were White and from Finland, limiting generalizability of the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, the Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Mars Edge. Another coauthor disclosed receipt of a grant from Orion. The other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Madeline Sterling, MD, knew something was wrong when she heard her patient’s voice on the phone. The patient was breathing too fast and sounded fatigued. Like many people with heart failure, this patient had several comorbidities: diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer, which was in remission.

The patient had been in and out of the hospital several times and was afraid of going back, but Dr. Sterling, a primary care physician, advised her that it was the safe thing to do.

During the woman’s stay, the inpatient cardiology team called Dr. Sterling to provide status updates and ask for input. When the patient was discharged, Dr. Sterling received information on what medicines had been changed and scheduled follow-up care within 10 days. Dr. Sterling, who’d cared for the woman for many years, called her family, her home health aide, and another caregiver to discuss the plan.

“When you know these patients really well, it’s helpful,” Dr. Sterling, a professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said. Primary care clinicians have “an appreciation for how all these conditions fit together, how the medicines fit together, and how to put that patient’s priorities at the front of the equation.”

Research has shown that follow-up care within 7-10 days after discharge, especially for patients with heart failure, can prevent hospital readmissions. Patients’ health can change rapidly following discharge: They may start retaining fluid or may not know how to maintain a low-sodium diet, or they might have trouble obtaining medication. Primary care clinicians spot these early warning signs in follow-up visits.

Heart failure affects more than 6 million adults in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The condition is a common cause of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge, according to research published by the American Heart Association.

Patients with heart failure are particularly challenging to care for because of comorbidities.

“They’re a very, very sick group of patients that are very difficult to manage,” said Noah Moss, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

But patients do not always receive the follow-up care they need, some studies have found.
 

Right drugs at the right time

Kelly Axsom, MD, a cardiologist at the Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and director of the centralized heart failure management program at the New York–Presbyterian Hospital System, called the primary care clinician the “captain of the ship,” ensuring that medications are reconciled and providing education about what to eat after discharge.

“It’s actually pretty complicated to go from being in the hospital to being at home,” Dr. Axsom said. “There are often many medication changes, there are lots of instructions that are told to you as a patient that are hard to remember.”

A patient’s weight might fluctuate in the days following discharge because the dose of diuretics might be too low or too high and need to be adjusted, according to Ishani Ganguli, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and a general internist in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

K. Melissa Hayes, DNP, ANP-BC, CHFN, an assistant professor in the adult gerontology primary care program at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, Tenn., recalled one patient who was given a months’ worth of medications following his discharge from the hospital.

“He was given expensive medications he couldn’t afford and not any refills or how to get those medications,” Dr. Hayes said.

Sometimes patients have no way to get to the pharmacy, or their pharmacy doesn’t have the medication they need, or their insurance doesn’t cover the drugs.

“The average patient is on at least six medications for heart failure, maybe even seven, and then that’s not including all their other medications,” Dr. Hayes said. “That can be a lot for people to keep up with.”

Dr. Hayes talks to her patients with heart failure about what drugs they have been prescribed and what medications they require more of, and she deprescribes any that are duplicative.

Helping patients understand why they are taking each drug encourages them to stick to the regimen. Diuretics, for example, can lead to frequent urination. If patients are unable to take regular bathroom breaks, they may be tempted to stop using the medication – a potentially catastrophic mistake.

“Often I have patients say, ‘Nobody ever explained it to me that way,’ ” Dr. Hayes said. “Someone can have a PhD but not understand their medications.”

Clinicians also can alert patients to commonly used medications that can worsen heart failure, such as diabetes drugs and over-the-counter medications such as ibuprofen.

Patients should be prescribed a combination of four recommended medications. But several studies have found that clinicians often fail to achieve the target doses for those medications. The use of guideline-directed medications reduces mortality and hospitalization rates, according to multiple clinical trials.
 

Eyes and ears on the patient

Once home, patients must stick to the right diet, weigh themselves every day, and monitor their blood pressure. But changing behaviors can be a struggle.

“Being seen quickly within a couple of days of discharge, you can catch things,” said Dr. Hayes, who has edited a book on managing patients with heart failure in primary care.

“It’s an opportunity to see how they’re doing at home, make sure they have their medications, make sure there’s been no misunderstanding or miscommunication about what they’re supposed to be doing at home,” says Marc Itskowitz, MD, a primary care physician affiliated with Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh.

Ideally, a record that readily integrates information from wearables – such as blood pressure and weight – would make it easier to spot abnormalities, Dr. Itskowtiz said. “I think we’re still in the infancy of the electronic health record,” he said.

Ensuring that follow-up visits are as accessible as possible for patients is also important. Telehealth makes it easier for patients after they return home from the hospital, Dr. Itskowitz said.
 

More infrastructure

Another challenge of providing follow-up care for patients with heart failure is completing all the tasks a clinician must do within a 20-minute visit: an examination; education on the condition and medications; counseling on diet and exercise; coordination of medical equipment, such as a blood pressure cuff for home use; and making appointments with specialists.

“In the current system, additional support for primary care is needed so we can do all this,” Dr. Sterling said.

Staff at primary care clinics should be trained to answer calls from patients when they experience changes in their weight or are worried about other potential problems. “A lot of primary care practices are bare bones,” Dr. Hayes said, meaning they might not have the staff to field those calls. Educating patients as to when they should call their physician, especially after experiencing worsening symptoms, is also important.

Dr. Hayes suggests setting aside time in the schedule each week to see patients who have been recently discharged from the hospital. In the Cardiology and Vascular Clinic at Nashville General Hospital, Tenn., where she spends half a day each week, Dr. Hayes requests 30 minutes to see patients who have recently been discharged from hospital.

Even when the process goes smoothly, some patients will return to the hospital because of the progressive nature of heart failure, according to Dr. Hayes. Improving care following their hospitalization can keep these people from rapidly declining.

“Most patients with heart failure want to be taking care of the grandchildren or be able to enjoy family dinners together,” Dr. Axsom said. “I think anything we can do to help improve their quality of life is really important.”
 

Take-home

• See heart failure patients early after their discharge from hospital, ideally within 7-10 days.
• Make sure patients have access to the right medications at the right dosages and that they know why they’re taking them.
• Educate patients about the diet they should be following.
• Have a system to monitor patients’ symptoms and let them know when they should call.

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

Madeline Sterling, MD, knew something was wrong when she heard her patient’s voice on the phone. The patient was breathing too fast and sounded fatigued. Like many people with heart failure, this patient had several comorbidities: diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer, which was in remission.

The patient had been in and out of the hospital several times and was afraid of going back, but Dr. Sterling, a primary care physician, advised her that it was the safe thing to do.

During the woman’s stay, the inpatient cardiology team called Dr. Sterling to provide status updates and ask for input. When the patient was discharged, Dr. Sterling received information on what medicines had been changed and scheduled follow-up care within 10 days. Dr. Sterling, who’d cared for the woman for many years, called her family, her home health aide, and another caregiver to discuss the plan.

“When you know these patients really well, it’s helpful,” Dr. Sterling, a professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said. Primary care clinicians have “an appreciation for how all these conditions fit together, how the medicines fit together, and how to put that patient’s priorities at the front of the equation.”

Research has shown that follow-up care within 7-10 days after discharge, especially for patients with heart failure, can prevent hospital readmissions. Patients’ health can change rapidly following discharge: They may start retaining fluid or may not know how to maintain a low-sodium diet, or they might have trouble obtaining medication. Primary care clinicians spot these early warning signs in follow-up visits.

Heart failure affects more than 6 million adults in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The condition is a common cause of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge, according to research published by the American Heart Association.

Patients with heart failure are particularly challenging to care for because of comorbidities.

“They’re a very, very sick group of patients that are very difficult to manage,” said Noah Moss, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

But patients do not always receive the follow-up care they need, some studies have found.
 

Right drugs at the right time

Kelly Axsom, MD, a cardiologist at the Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and director of the centralized heart failure management program at the New York–Presbyterian Hospital System, called the primary care clinician the “captain of the ship,” ensuring that medications are reconciled and providing education about what to eat after discharge.

“It’s actually pretty complicated to go from being in the hospital to being at home,” Dr. Axsom said. “There are often many medication changes, there are lots of instructions that are told to you as a patient that are hard to remember.”

A patient’s weight might fluctuate in the days following discharge because the dose of diuretics might be too low or too high and need to be adjusted, according to Ishani Ganguli, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and a general internist in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

K. Melissa Hayes, DNP, ANP-BC, CHFN, an assistant professor in the adult gerontology primary care program at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, Tenn., recalled one patient who was given a months’ worth of medications following his discharge from the hospital.

“He was given expensive medications he couldn’t afford and not any refills or how to get those medications,” Dr. Hayes said.

Sometimes patients have no way to get to the pharmacy, or their pharmacy doesn’t have the medication they need, or their insurance doesn’t cover the drugs.

“The average patient is on at least six medications for heart failure, maybe even seven, and then that’s not including all their other medications,” Dr. Hayes said. “That can be a lot for people to keep up with.”

Dr. Hayes talks to her patients with heart failure about what drugs they have been prescribed and what medications they require more of, and she deprescribes any that are duplicative.

Helping patients understand why they are taking each drug encourages them to stick to the regimen. Diuretics, for example, can lead to frequent urination. If patients are unable to take regular bathroom breaks, they may be tempted to stop using the medication – a potentially catastrophic mistake.

“Often I have patients say, ‘Nobody ever explained it to me that way,’ ” Dr. Hayes said. “Someone can have a PhD but not understand their medications.”

Clinicians also can alert patients to commonly used medications that can worsen heart failure, such as diabetes drugs and over-the-counter medications such as ibuprofen.

Patients should be prescribed a combination of four recommended medications. But several studies have found that clinicians often fail to achieve the target doses for those medications. The use of guideline-directed medications reduces mortality and hospitalization rates, according to multiple clinical trials.
 

Eyes and ears on the patient

Once home, patients must stick to the right diet, weigh themselves every day, and monitor their blood pressure. But changing behaviors can be a struggle.

“Being seen quickly within a couple of days of discharge, you can catch things,” said Dr. Hayes, who has edited a book on managing patients with heart failure in primary care.

“It’s an opportunity to see how they’re doing at home, make sure they have their medications, make sure there’s been no misunderstanding or miscommunication about what they’re supposed to be doing at home,” says Marc Itskowitz, MD, a primary care physician affiliated with Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh.

Ideally, a record that readily integrates information from wearables – such as blood pressure and weight – would make it easier to spot abnormalities, Dr. Itskowtiz said. “I think we’re still in the infancy of the electronic health record,” he said.

Ensuring that follow-up visits are as accessible as possible for patients is also important. Telehealth makes it easier for patients after they return home from the hospital, Dr. Itskowitz said.
 

More infrastructure

Another challenge of providing follow-up care for patients with heart failure is completing all the tasks a clinician must do within a 20-minute visit: an examination; education on the condition and medications; counseling on diet and exercise; coordination of medical equipment, such as a blood pressure cuff for home use; and making appointments with specialists.

“In the current system, additional support for primary care is needed so we can do all this,” Dr. Sterling said.

Staff at primary care clinics should be trained to answer calls from patients when they experience changes in their weight or are worried about other potential problems. “A lot of primary care practices are bare bones,” Dr. Hayes said, meaning they might not have the staff to field those calls. Educating patients as to when they should call their physician, especially after experiencing worsening symptoms, is also important.

Dr. Hayes suggests setting aside time in the schedule each week to see patients who have been recently discharged from the hospital. In the Cardiology and Vascular Clinic at Nashville General Hospital, Tenn., where she spends half a day each week, Dr. Hayes requests 30 minutes to see patients who have recently been discharged from hospital.

Even when the process goes smoothly, some patients will return to the hospital because of the progressive nature of heart failure, according to Dr. Hayes. Improving care following their hospitalization can keep these people from rapidly declining.

“Most patients with heart failure want to be taking care of the grandchildren or be able to enjoy family dinners together,” Dr. Axsom said. “I think anything we can do to help improve their quality of life is really important.”
 

Take-home

• See heart failure patients early after their discharge from hospital, ideally within 7-10 days.
• Make sure patients have access to the right medications at the right dosages and that they know why they’re taking them.
• Educate patients about the diet they should be following.
• Have a system to monitor patients’ symptoms and let them know when they should call.

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

Madeline Sterling, MD, knew something was wrong when she heard her patient’s voice on the phone. The patient was breathing too fast and sounded fatigued. Like many people with heart failure, this patient had several comorbidities: diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer, which was in remission.

The patient had been in and out of the hospital several times and was afraid of going back, but Dr. Sterling, a primary care physician, advised her that it was the safe thing to do.

During the woman’s stay, the inpatient cardiology team called Dr. Sterling to provide status updates and ask for input. When the patient was discharged, Dr. Sterling received information on what medicines had been changed and scheduled follow-up care within 10 days. Dr. Sterling, who’d cared for the woman for many years, called her family, her home health aide, and another caregiver to discuss the plan.

“When you know these patients really well, it’s helpful,” Dr. Sterling, a professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said. Primary care clinicians have “an appreciation for how all these conditions fit together, how the medicines fit together, and how to put that patient’s priorities at the front of the equation.”

Research has shown that follow-up care within 7-10 days after discharge, especially for patients with heart failure, can prevent hospital readmissions. Patients’ health can change rapidly following discharge: They may start retaining fluid or may not know how to maintain a low-sodium diet, or they might have trouble obtaining medication. Primary care clinicians spot these early warning signs in follow-up visits.

Heart failure affects more than 6 million adults in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The condition is a common cause of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge, according to research published by the American Heart Association.

Patients with heart failure are particularly challenging to care for because of comorbidities.

“They’re a very, very sick group of patients that are very difficult to manage,” said Noah Moss, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

But patients do not always receive the follow-up care they need, some studies have found.
 

Right drugs at the right time

Kelly Axsom, MD, a cardiologist at the Columbia University Medical Center, New York, and director of the centralized heart failure management program at the New York–Presbyterian Hospital System, called the primary care clinician the “captain of the ship,” ensuring that medications are reconciled and providing education about what to eat after discharge.

“It’s actually pretty complicated to go from being in the hospital to being at home,” Dr. Axsom said. “There are often many medication changes, there are lots of instructions that are told to you as a patient that are hard to remember.”

A patient’s weight might fluctuate in the days following discharge because the dose of diuretics might be too low or too high and need to be adjusted, according to Ishani Ganguli, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of medicine and a general internist in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

K. Melissa Hayes, DNP, ANP-BC, CHFN, an assistant professor in the adult gerontology primary care program at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, Nashville, Tenn., recalled one patient who was given a months’ worth of medications following his discharge from the hospital.

“He was given expensive medications he couldn’t afford and not any refills or how to get those medications,” Dr. Hayes said.

Sometimes patients have no way to get to the pharmacy, or their pharmacy doesn’t have the medication they need, or their insurance doesn’t cover the drugs.

“The average patient is on at least six medications for heart failure, maybe even seven, and then that’s not including all their other medications,” Dr. Hayes said. “That can be a lot for people to keep up with.”

Dr. Hayes talks to her patients with heart failure about what drugs they have been prescribed and what medications they require more of, and she deprescribes any that are duplicative.

Helping patients understand why they are taking each drug encourages them to stick to the regimen. Diuretics, for example, can lead to frequent urination. If patients are unable to take regular bathroom breaks, they may be tempted to stop using the medication – a potentially catastrophic mistake.

“Often I have patients say, ‘Nobody ever explained it to me that way,’ ” Dr. Hayes said. “Someone can have a PhD but not understand their medications.”

Clinicians also can alert patients to commonly used medications that can worsen heart failure, such as diabetes drugs and over-the-counter medications such as ibuprofen.

Patients should be prescribed a combination of four recommended medications. But several studies have found that clinicians often fail to achieve the target doses for those medications. The use of guideline-directed medications reduces mortality and hospitalization rates, according to multiple clinical trials.
 

Eyes and ears on the patient

Once home, patients must stick to the right diet, weigh themselves every day, and monitor their blood pressure. But changing behaviors can be a struggle.

“Being seen quickly within a couple of days of discharge, you can catch things,” said Dr. Hayes, who has edited a book on managing patients with heart failure in primary care.

“It’s an opportunity to see how they’re doing at home, make sure they have their medications, make sure there’s been no misunderstanding or miscommunication about what they’re supposed to be doing at home,” says Marc Itskowitz, MD, a primary care physician affiliated with Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh.

Ideally, a record that readily integrates information from wearables – such as blood pressure and weight – would make it easier to spot abnormalities, Dr. Itskowtiz said. “I think we’re still in the infancy of the electronic health record,” he said.

Ensuring that follow-up visits are as accessible as possible for patients is also important. Telehealth makes it easier for patients after they return home from the hospital, Dr. Itskowitz said.
 

More infrastructure

Another challenge of providing follow-up care for patients with heart failure is completing all the tasks a clinician must do within a 20-minute visit: an examination; education on the condition and medications; counseling on diet and exercise; coordination of medical equipment, such as a blood pressure cuff for home use; and making appointments with specialists.

“In the current system, additional support for primary care is needed so we can do all this,” Dr. Sterling said.

Staff at primary care clinics should be trained to answer calls from patients when they experience changes in their weight or are worried about other potential problems. “A lot of primary care practices are bare bones,” Dr. Hayes said, meaning they might not have the staff to field those calls. Educating patients as to when they should call their physician, especially after experiencing worsening symptoms, is also important.

Dr. Hayes suggests setting aside time in the schedule each week to see patients who have been recently discharged from the hospital. In the Cardiology and Vascular Clinic at Nashville General Hospital, Tenn., where she spends half a day each week, Dr. Hayes requests 30 minutes to see patients who have recently been discharged from hospital.

Even when the process goes smoothly, some patients will return to the hospital because of the progressive nature of heart failure, according to Dr. Hayes. Improving care following their hospitalization can keep these people from rapidly declining.

“Most patients with heart failure want to be taking care of the grandchildren or be able to enjoy family dinners together,” Dr. Axsom said. “I think anything we can do to help improve their quality of life is really important.”
 

Take-home

• See heart failure patients early after their discharge from hospital, ideally within 7-10 days.
• Make sure patients have access to the right medications at the right dosages and that they know why they’re taking them.
• Educate patients about the diet they should be following.
• Have a system to monitor patients’ symptoms and let them know when they should call.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved “the world’s first” leadless dual-chamber pacing system, one based in part on an already-approved leadless single-chamber device, Abbott has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The company’s AVEIR DR leadless pacing system consists of two percutaneously implanted devices, the single-chamber AVEIR VR leadless pacemaker, implanted within the right ventricle, and the novel AVEIR AR single-chamber pacemaker for implantation in the right atrium.

The AVEIR DR system relies on proprietary wireless technology to provide bidirectional, beat-to-beat communication between its two components to achieve dual-chamber synchronization, the company stated in a press release on the approval.

The system also provides real-time pacing analysis, Abbott said, allowing clinicians to assess proper device placement during the procedure and before implantation. The system is designed to be easily removed if the patient’s pacing needs evolve or its battery needs replacing.

Experienced operators achieved a 98% implantation success rate using the AVIER DR system in a 300-patient study conducted at 55 sites in Canada, Europe, and the United States. In that study, 63% of the patients had sinus-node dysfunction and 33% had AV block as their primary dual-chamber pacing indication.

The system exceeded its predefined safety and performance goals, providing AV-synchronous pacing in 97% of patients for at least 3 months, it was reported in May at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society and in a simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Modern medicine has been filled with technological achievements that fundamentally changed how doctors approach patient care, and now we can officially add dual-chamber leadless pacing to that list of achievements,” coauthor Vivek Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services for Mount Sinai Hospital and the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said in the press release.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved “the world’s first” leadless dual-chamber pacing system, one based in part on an already-approved leadless single-chamber device, Abbott has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The company’s AVEIR DR leadless pacing system consists of two percutaneously implanted devices, the single-chamber AVEIR VR leadless pacemaker, implanted within the right ventricle, and the novel AVEIR AR single-chamber pacemaker for implantation in the right atrium.

The AVEIR DR system relies on proprietary wireless technology to provide bidirectional, beat-to-beat communication between its two components to achieve dual-chamber synchronization, the company stated in a press release on the approval.

The system also provides real-time pacing analysis, Abbott said, allowing clinicians to assess proper device placement during the procedure and before implantation. The system is designed to be easily removed if the patient’s pacing needs evolve or its battery needs replacing.

Experienced operators achieved a 98% implantation success rate using the AVIER DR system in a 300-patient study conducted at 55 sites in Canada, Europe, and the United States. In that study, 63% of the patients had sinus-node dysfunction and 33% had AV block as their primary dual-chamber pacing indication.

The system exceeded its predefined safety and performance goals, providing AV-synchronous pacing in 97% of patients for at least 3 months, it was reported in May at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society and in a simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Modern medicine has been filled with technological achievements that fundamentally changed how doctors approach patient care, and now we can officially add dual-chamber leadless pacing to that list of achievements,” coauthor Vivek Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services for Mount Sinai Hospital and the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said in the press release.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved “the world’s first” leadless dual-chamber pacing system, one based in part on an already-approved leadless single-chamber device, Abbott has announced.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The company’s AVEIR DR leadless pacing system consists of two percutaneously implanted devices, the single-chamber AVEIR VR leadless pacemaker, implanted within the right ventricle, and the novel AVEIR AR single-chamber pacemaker for implantation in the right atrium.

The AVEIR DR system relies on proprietary wireless technology to provide bidirectional, beat-to-beat communication between its two components to achieve dual-chamber synchronization, the company stated in a press release on the approval.

The system also provides real-time pacing analysis, Abbott said, allowing clinicians to assess proper device placement during the procedure and before implantation. The system is designed to be easily removed if the patient’s pacing needs evolve or its battery needs replacing.

Experienced operators achieved a 98% implantation success rate using the AVIER DR system in a 300-patient study conducted at 55 sites in Canada, Europe, and the United States. In that study, 63% of the patients had sinus-node dysfunction and 33% had AV block as their primary dual-chamber pacing indication.

The system exceeded its predefined safety and performance goals, providing AV-synchronous pacing in 97% of patients for at least 3 months, it was reported in May at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society and in a simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“Modern medicine has been filled with technological achievements that fundamentally changed how doctors approach patient care, and now we can officially add dual-chamber leadless pacing to that list of achievements,” coauthor Vivek Reddy, MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services for Mount Sinai Hospital and the Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said in the press release.

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

Women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), regardless of whether their left ventricular (LV) function recovers, may have a heightened risk for a relapse and other cardiovascular events if they become pregnant again later, a new study suggests.

Researchers looked at the long-term outcomes in a cohort of women who had developed PPCM and became pregnant again several years later, comparing those with LV function that had “normalized” in the interim against those with persisting LV dysfunction.

In their analysis, adverse maternal outcomes 5 years after an index pregnancy were significantly worse among those in whom LV dysfunction had persisted, compared with those with recovered LV function. The risk of relapsed PPCM persisted out to 8 years. Mortality remained high in both groups through the follow-up.

The study suggests that “women with PPCM need long-term follow-up by cardiology, as mortality does not abate over time,” Kalgi Modi, MD, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, said in an interview.

Women with a history of PPCM, she said, need “multidisciplinary and shared decision-making for family planning, because normalization of left ventricular function after index pregnancy does not guarantee a favorable outcome in the subsequent pregnancies.”

Dr. Modi is senior author on the study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The current findings are important to women with a history of PPCM who are “contemplating future pregnancy,” Afshan Hameed, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and cardiologist at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. The investigators suggest that “complete recovery of cardiac function after PPCM does not guarantee a favorable outcome in future pregnancy,” agreed Dr. Hameed, who was not involved in the current study. Future pregnancies must therefore “be highly discouraged or considered with caution even in patients who have recovered their cardiac function.”

To investigate the impact of PPCM on risk at subsequent pregnancies, the researchers studied 45 patients with PPCM who had gone on to have at least one more pregnancy, the first a median of 28 months later. Their mean age was 27 and 80% were Black; they were followed a median of 8 years.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy, defined as idiopathic heart failure with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 45% or less in the last month of pregnancy through the following 5 months, was diagnosed post partum in 93.3% and antepartum in the remaining 6.7% (mean time of diagnosis, 6 weeks post partum).

The mean LVEF fell from 45.1% at the index pregnancy to 41.2% (P = .009) at subsequent pregnancies. The “recovery group” included the 30 women with LVEF recovery to 50% or higher after the index pregnancy, and the remaining 15 with persisting LV dysfunction – defined as LVEF < 50% – made up the “nonrecovery group.”

Recovery of LVEF was associated with a reduced risk of persisting LV dysfunction, the report states, at a hazard ratio of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64; P = .02) after adjustment for hypertension, diabetes, and history of preeclampsia. But that risk went up sharply in association with illicit drug use, similarly adjusted, with an HR of 9.08 (95% CI, 1.38-59.8; P = .02).

The nonrecovery group, compared with the recovery group, experienced significantly higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .04) – a composite endpoint that included relapse PPCM (33.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .01), HF (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .03), cardiogenic shock, thromboembolic events, and death – at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .25)

All-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups at a median of 8 years (20.0% vs. 20.0%; P = 1.00), and the difference in overall adverse maternal outcomes had gone from significant to nonsignificant (53.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .20). The difference in relapse PPCM between groups remained significant after 8 years (53.3% vs. 23.3%; P = .04)

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, a relatively small population, and lack of racial diversity, the report notes.

Indeed, most of the study’s subjects were Black, and previous studies have demonstrated a “different phenotypic presentation and outcome in African American women with PPCM, compared with non–African American women,” an accompanying editorial states.

Therefore, applicability of its findings to other populations “needs to be examined by urgently needed national prospective registries with long-term follow-up,” writes Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Moreover, the study questions “whether the reverse remodeling and improvement of [LVEF] in women with PPCM represent a true recovery.” Prior studies “have shown an impaired contractile reserve as well as abnormal myocardial strain and reduced exercise capacity and even mortality in women with PPCM after RLV,” Dr. Elkayam notes.

It’s therefore possible – as with other forms of dilated cardiomyopathy – that LVEF normalization “does not represent a true recovery but a new steady state with subclinical myocardial dysfunction that is prone to development of recurrent [LV dysfunction] and clinical deterioration in response to various triggers such as long-standing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, illicit drug use,” and, “more importantly,” subsequent pregnancies.

The study points to “the need for a close long-term follow-up of women with PPCM” and provides “a rationale for early initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy after the diagnosis of PPCM and possible continuation even after improvement of LVEF.”

No funding source was reported. Dr. Modi and coauthors, Dr. Elkayam, and Dr. Hameed declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), regardless of whether their left ventricular (LV) function recovers, may have a heightened risk for a relapse and other cardiovascular events if they become pregnant again later, a new study suggests.

Researchers looked at the long-term outcomes in a cohort of women who had developed PPCM and became pregnant again several years later, comparing those with LV function that had “normalized” in the interim against those with persisting LV dysfunction.

In their analysis, adverse maternal outcomes 5 years after an index pregnancy were significantly worse among those in whom LV dysfunction had persisted, compared with those with recovered LV function. The risk of relapsed PPCM persisted out to 8 years. Mortality remained high in both groups through the follow-up.

The study suggests that “women with PPCM need long-term follow-up by cardiology, as mortality does not abate over time,” Kalgi Modi, MD, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, said in an interview.

Women with a history of PPCM, she said, need “multidisciplinary and shared decision-making for family planning, because normalization of left ventricular function after index pregnancy does not guarantee a favorable outcome in the subsequent pregnancies.”

Dr. Modi is senior author on the study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The current findings are important to women with a history of PPCM who are “contemplating future pregnancy,” Afshan Hameed, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and cardiologist at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. The investigators suggest that “complete recovery of cardiac function after PPCM does not guarantee a favorable outcome in future pregnancy,” agreed Dr. Hameed, who was not involved in the current study. Future pregnancies must therefore “be highly discouraged or considered with caution even in patients who have recovered their cardiac function.”

To investigate the impact of PPCM on risk at subsequent pregnancies, the researchers studied 45 patients with PPCM who had gone on to have at least one more pregnancy, the first a median of 28 months later. Their mean age was 27 and 80% were Black; they were followed a median of 8 years.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy, defined as idiopathic heart failure with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 45% or less in the last month of pregnancy through the following 5 months, was diagnosed post partum in 93.3% and antepartum in the remaining 6.7% (mean time of diagnosis, 6 weeks post partum).

The mean LVEF fell from 45.1% at the index pregnancy to 41.2% (P = .009) at subsequent pregnancies. The “recovery group” included the 30 women with LVEF recovery to 50% or higher after the index pregnancy, and the remaining 15 with persisting LV dysfunction – defined as LVEF < 50% – made up the “nonrecovery group.”

Recovery of LVEF was associated with a reduced risk of persisting LV dysfunction, the report states, at a hazard ratio of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64; P = .02) after adjustment for hypertension, diabetes, and history of preeclampsia. But that risk went up sharply in association with illicit drug use, similarly adjusted, with an HR of 9.08 (95% CI, 1.38-59.8; P = .02).

The nonrecovery group, compared with the recovery group, experienced significantly higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .04) – a composite endpoint that included relapse PPCM (33.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .01), HF (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .03), cardiogenic shock, thromboembolic events, and death – at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .25)

All-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups at a median of 8 years (20.0% vs. 20.0%; P = 1.00), and the difference in overall adverse maternal outcomes had gone from significant to nonsignificant (53.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .20). The difference in relapse PPCM between groups remained significant after 8 years (53.3% vs. 23.3%; P = .04)

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, a relatively small population, and lack of racial diversity, the report notes.

Indeed, most of the study’s subjects were Black, and previous studies have demonstrated a “different phenotypic presentation and outcome in African American women with PPCM, compared with non–African American women,” an accompanying editorial states.

Therefore, applicability of its findings to other populations “needs to be examined by urgently needed national prospective registries with long-term follow-up,” writes Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Moreover, the study questions “whether the reverse remodeling and improvement of [LVEF] in women with PPCM represent a true recovery.” Prior studies “have shown an impaired contractile reserve as well as abnormal myocardial strain and reduced exercise capacity and even mortality in women with PPCM after RLV,” Dr. Elkayam notes.

It’s therefore possible – as with other forms of dilated cardiomyopathy – that LVEF normalization “does not represent a true recovery but a new steady state with subclinical myocardial dysfunction that is prone to development of recurrent [LV dysfunction] and clinical deterioration in response to various triggers such as long-standing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, illicit drug use,” and, “more importantly,” subsequent pregnancies.

The study points to “the need for a close long-term follow-up of women with PPCM” and provides “a rationale for early initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy after the diagnosis of PPCM and possible continuation even after improvement of LVEF.”

No funding source was reported. Dr. Modi and coauthors, Dr. Elkayam, and Dr. Hameed declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), regardless of whether their left ventricular (LV) function recovers, may have a heightened risk for a relapse and other cardiovascular events if they become pregnant again later, a new study suggests.

Researchers looked at the long-term outcomes in a cohort of women who had developed PPCM and became pregnant again several years later, comparing those with LV function that had “normalized” in the interim against those with persisting LV dysfunction.

In their analysis, adverse maternal outcomes 5 years after an index pregnancy were significantly worse among those in whom LV dysfunction had persisted, compared with those with recovered LV function. The risk of relapsed PPCM persisted out to 8 years. Mortality remained high in both groups through the follow-up.

The study suggests that “women with PPCM need long-term follow-up by cardiology, as mortality does not abate over time,” Kalgi Modi, MD, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, said in an interview.

Women with a history of PPCM, she said, need “multidisciplinary and shared decision-making for family planning, because normalization of left ventricular function after index pregnancy does not guarantee a favorable outcome in the subsequent pregnancies.”

Dr. Modi is senior author on the study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The current findings are important to women with a history of PPCM who are “contemplating future pregnancy,” Afshan Hameed, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and cardiologist at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. The investigators suggest that “complete recovery of cardiac function after PPCM does not guarantee a favorable outcome in future pregnancy,” agreed Dr. Hameed, who was not involved in the current study. Future pregnancies must therefore “be highly discouraged or considered with caution even in patients who have recovered their cardiac function.”

To investigate the impact of PPCM on risk at subsequent pregnancies, the researchers studied 45 patients with PPCM who had gone on to have at least one more pregnancy, the first a median of 28 months later. Their mean age was 27 and 80% were Black; they were followed a median of 8 years.

Peripartum cardiomyopathy, defined as idiopathic heart failure with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 45% or less in the last month of pregnancy through the following 5 months, was diagnosed post partum in 93.3% and antepartum in the remaining 6.7% (mean time of diagnosis, 6 weeks post partum).

The mean LVEF fell from 45.1% at the index pregnancy to 41.2% (P = .009) at subsequent pregnancies. The “recovery group” included the 30 women with LVEF recovery to 50% or higher after the index pregnancy, and the remaining 15 with persisting LV dysfunction – defined as LVEF < 50% – made up the “nonrecovery group.”

Recovery of LVEF was associated with a reduced risk of persisting LV dysfunction, the report states, at a hazard ratio of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64; P = .02) after adjustment for hypertension, diabetes, and history of preeclampsia. But that risk went up sharply in association with illicit drug use, similarly adjusted, with an HR of 9.08 (95% CI, 1.38-59.8; P = .02).

The nonrecovery group, compared with the recovery group, experienced significantly higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .04) – a composite endpoint that included relapse PPCM (33.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .01), HF (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .03), cardiogenic shock, thromboembolic events, and death – at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .25)

All-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups at a median of 8 years (20.0% vs. 20.0%; P = 1.00), and the difference in overall adverse maternal outcomes had gone from significant to nonsignificant (53.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .20). The difference in relapse PPCM between groups remained significant after 8 years (53.3% vs. 23.3%; P = .04)

The study is limited by its retrospective nature, a relatively small population, and lack of racial diversity, the report notes.

Indeed, most of the study’s subjects were Black, and previous studies have demonstrated a “different phenotypic presentation and outcome in African American women with PPCM, compared with non–African American women,” an accompanying editorial states.

Therefore, applicability of its findings to other populations “needs to be examined by urgently needed national prospective registries with long-term follow-up,” writes Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Moreover, the study questions “whether the reverse remodeling and improvement of [LVEF] in women with PPCM represent a true recovery.” Prior studies “have shown an impaired contractile reserve as well as abnormal myocardial strain and reduced exercise capacity and even mortality in women with PPCM after RLV,” Dr. Elkayam notes.

It’s therefore possible – as with other forms of dilated cardiomyopathy – that LVEF normalization “does not represent a true recovery but a new steady state with subclinical myocardial dysfunction that is prone to development of recurrent [LV dysfunction] and clinical deterioration in response to various triggers such as long-standing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, illicit drug use,” and, “more importantly,” subsequent pregnancies.

The study points to “the need for a close long-term follow-up of women with PPCM” and provides “a rationale for early initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy after the diagnosis of PPCM and possible continuation even after improvement of LVEF.”

No funding source was reported. Dr. Modi and coauthors, Dr. Elkayam, and Dr. Hameed declare no relevant financial relationships.

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

A cohort study of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) has questioned the guideline definition of iron deficiency and the criteria used to identify and potentially treat it, with implications that may extend to cardiovascular disease in general.

In the study involving more than 900 patients with PH, investigators at seven U.S. centers determined the prevalence of iron deficiency by two separate definitions and assessed its associations with functional measures and quality of life (QoL) scores.

An iron deficiency definition used conventionally in heart failure (HF) – ferritin less than 100 g/mL or 100-299 ng/mL with transferrin saturation (TSAT) less than 20% – failed to discriminate patients with reduced peak oxygen consumption (peakVO2), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) results, and QoL scores on the 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36).

But an alternative definition for iron deficiency, simply a TSAT less than 21%, did predict such patients with reduced peakVO2, 6MWT, and QoL. It was also associated with an increased mortality risk. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

“A low TSAT, less than 21%, is key in the pathophysiology of iron deficiency in pulmonary hypertension” and is associated with those important clinical and functional characteristics, lead author Pieter Martens MD, PhD, said in an interview. The study “underscores the importance of these criteria in future intervention studies in the field of pulmonary hypertension testing iron therapies.”

A broader implication is that “we should revise how we define iron deficiency in heart failure and cardiovascular disease in general and how we select patients for iron therapies,” said Dr. Martens, of the Heart, Vascular & Thoracic Institute of the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Iron’s role in pulmonary vascular disease

“Iron deficiency is associated with an energetic deficit, especially in high energy–demanding tissue, leading to early skeletal muscle acidification and diminished left and right ventricular (RV) contractile reserve during exercise,” the published report states. It can lead to “maladaptive RV remodeling,” which is a “hallmark feature” predictive of morbidity and mortality in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD).

Some studies have suggested that iron deficiency is a common comorbidity in patients with PVD, their estimates of its prevalence ranging widely due in part to the “absence of a uniform definition,” write the authors.

Dr. Martens said the current study was conducted partly in response to the increasingly common observation that the HF-associated definition of iron deficiency “has limitations.” Yet, “without validation in the field of pulmonary hypertension, the 2022 pulmonary hypertension guidelines endorse this definition.”

As iron deficiency is a causal risk factor for HF progression, Dr. Martens added, the HF field has “taught us the importance of using validated definitions for iron deficiency when selecting patients for iron treatment in randomized controlled trials.”

Moreover, some evidence suggests that iron deficiency by some definitions may be associated with diminished exercise capacity and QoL in patients with PVD, which are associations that have not been confirmed in large studies, the report notes.

Therefore, it continues, the study sought to “determine and validate” the optimal definition of iron deficiency in patients with PVD; document its prevalence; and explore associations between iron deficiency and exercise capacity, QoL, and cardiac and pulmonary vascular remodeling.
 

Evaluating definitions of iron deficiency

The prospective study, called PVDOMICS, entered 1,195 subjects with available iron levels. After exclusion of 38 patients with sarcoidosis, myeloproliferative disease, or hemoglobinopathy, there remained 693 patients with “overt” PH, 225 with a milder form of PH who served as PVD comparators, and 90 age-, sex-, race/ethnicity- matched “healthy” adults who served as controls.

According to the conventional HF definition of iron deficiency – that is, ferritin 100-299 ng/mL and TSAT less than 20% – the prevalences were 74% in patients with overt PH and 72% of those “across the PVD spectrum.”

But by that definition, iron deficient and non-iron deficient patients didn’t differ significantly in peakVO2, 6MWT distance, or SF-36 physical component scores.

In contrast, patients meeting the alternative definition of iron deficiency of TSAT less than 21% showed significantly reduced functional and QoL measures, compared with those with TSAT greater than or equal to 21%.

Broader implications

An accompanying editorial agrees that the study’s implications apply well beyond PH. It highlights that iron deficiency is common in PH, while such PH is “not substantially different from the problem in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease in general,” lead editorialist John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, University of Glasgow, said in an interview. “It’s also common as people get older, even in those without these diseases.”

Dr. Cleland said the anemia definition currently used in cardiovascular research and practice is based on a hemoglobin concentration below the 5th percentile of age and sex in primarily young, healthy people, and not on its association with clinical outcomes.

“We recently analyzed data on a large population in the United Kingdom with a broad range of cardiovascular diseases and found that unless anemia is severe, [other] markers of iron deficiency are usually not measured,” he said. A low hemoglobin and TSAT, but not low ferritin levels, are associated with worse prognosis.

Dr. Cleland agreed that the HF-oriented definition is “poor,” with profound implications for the conduct of clinical trials. “If the definition of iron deficiency lacks specificity, then clinical trials will include many patients without iron deficiency who are unlikely to benefit from and might be harmed by IV iron.” Inclusion of such patients may also “dilute” any benefit that might emerge and render the outcome inaccurate.

But if the definition of iron deficiency lacks sensitivity, “then in clinical practice, many patients with iron deficiency may be denied a simple and effective treatment.”

Measuring serum iron could potentially be useful, but it’s usually not done in randomized trials “especially since taking an iron tablet can give a temporary ‘blip’ in serum iron,” Dr. Cleland said. “So TSAT is a reasonable compromise.” He said he “looks forward” to any further data on serum iron as a way of assessing iron deficiency and anemia.
 

Half full vs. half empty

Dr. Cleland likened the question of whom to treat with iron supplementation as a “glass half full versus half empty” clinical dilemma. “One approach is to give iron to everyone unless there’s evidence that they’re overloaded,” he said, “while the other is to withhold iron from everyone unless there’s evidence that they’re iron depleted.”

Recent evidence from the IRONMAN trial suggested that its patients with HF who received intravenous iron were less likely to be hospitalized for infections, particularly COVID-19, than a usual-care group. The treatment may also help reduce frailty.

“So should we be offering IV iron specifically to people considered iron deficient, or should we be ensuring that everyone over age 70 get iron supplements?” Dr. Cleland mused rhetorically. On a cautionary note, he added, perhaps iron supplementation will be harmful if it’s not necessary.

Dr. Cleland proposed “focusing for the moment on people who are iron deficient but investigating the possibility that we are being overly restrictive and should be giving iron to a much broader population.” That course, however, would require large population-based studies.

“We need more experience,” Dr. Cleland said, “to make sure that the benefits outweigh any risks before we can just give iron to everyone.”

Dr. Martens has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Cleland declares grant support, support for travel, and personal honoraria from Pharmacosmos and Vifor. Disclosures for other authors are in the published report and editorial.

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

A cohort study of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) has questioned the guideline definition of iron deficiency and the criteria used to identify and potentially treat it, with implications that may extend to cardiovascular disease in general.

In the study involving more than 900 patients with PH, investigators at seven U.S. centers determined the prevalence of iron deficiency by two separate definitions and assessed its associations with functional measures and quality of life (QoL) scores.

An iron deficiency definition used conventionally in heart failure (HF) – ferritin less than 100 g/mL or 100-299 ng/mL with transferrin saturation (TSAT) less than 20% – failed to discriminate patients with reduced peak oxygen consumption (peakVO2), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) results, and QoL scores on the 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36).

But an alternative definition for iron deficiency, simply a TSAT less than 21%, did predict such patients with reduced peakVO2, 6MWT, and QoL. It was also associated with an increased mortality risk. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

“A low TSAT, less than 21%, is key in the pathophysiology of iron deficiency in pulmonary hypertension” and is associated with those important clinical and functional characteristics, lead author Pieter Martens MD, PhD, said in an interview. The study “underscores the importance of these criteria in future intervention studies in the field of pulmonary hypertension testing iron therapies.”

A broader implication is that “we should revise how we define iron deficiency in heart failure and cardiovascular disease in general and how we select patients for iron therapies,” said Dr. Martens, of the Heart, Vascular & Thoracic Institute of the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Iron’s role in pulmonary vascular disease

“Iron deficiency is associated with an energetic deficit, especially in high energy–demanding tissue, leading to early skeletal muscle acidification and diminished left and right ventricular (RV) contractile reserve during exercise,” the published report states. It can lead to “maladaptive RV remodeling,” which is a “hallmark feature” predictive of morbidity and mortality in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD).

Some studies have suggested that iron deficiency is a common comorbidity in patients with PVD, their estimates of its prevalence ranging widely due in part to the “absence of a uniform definition,” write the authors.

Dr. Martens said the current study was conducted partly in response to the increasingly common observation that the HF-associated definition of iron deficiency “has limitations.” Yet, “without validation in the field of pulmonary hypertension, the 2022 pulmonary hypertension guidelines endorse this definition.”

As iron deficiency is a causal risk factor for HF progression, Dr. Martens added, the HF field has “taught us the importance of using validated definitions for iron deficiency when selecting patients for iron treatment in randomized controlled trials.”

Moreover, some evidence suggests that iron deficiency by some definitions may be associated with diminished exercise capacity and QoL in patients with PVD, which are associations that have not been confirmed in large studies, the report notes.

Therefore, it continues, the study sought to “determine and validate” the optimal definition of iron deficiency in patients with PVD; document its prevalence; and explore associations between iron deficiency and exercise capacity, QoL, and cardiac and pulmonary vascular remodeling.
 

Evaluating definitions of iron deficiency

The prospective study, called PVDOMICS, entered 1,195 subjects with available iron levels. After exclusion of 38 patients with sarcoidosis, myeloproliferative disease, or hemoglobinopathy, there remained 693 patients with “overt” PH, 225 with a milder form of PH who served as PVD comparators, and 90 age-, sex-, race/ethnicity- matched “healthy” adults who served as controls.

According to the conventional HF definition of iron deficiency – that is, ferritin 100-299 ng/mL and TSAT less than 20% – the prevalences were 74% in patients with overt PH and 72% of those “across the PVD spectrum.”

But by that definition, iron deficient and non-iron deficient patients didn’t differ significantly in peakVO2, 6MWT distance, or SF-36 physical component scores.

In contrast, patients meeting the alternative definition of iron deficiency of TSAT less than 21% showed significantly reduced functional and QoL measures, compared with those with TSAT greater than or equal to 21%.

Broader implications

An accompanying editorial agrees that the study’s implications apply well beyond PH. It highlights that iron deficiency is common in PH, while such PH is “not substantially different from the problem in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease in general,” lead editorialist John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, University of Glasgow, said in an interview. “It’s also common as people get older, even in those without these diseases.”

Dr. Cleland said the anemia definition currently used in cardiovascular research and practice is based on a hemoglobin concentration below the 5th percentile of age and sex in primarily young, healthy people, and not on its association with clinical outcomes.

“We recently analyzed data on a large population in the United Kingdom with a broad range of cardiovascular diseases and found that unless anemia is severe, [other] markers of iron deficiency are usually not measured,” he said. A low hemoglobin and TSAT, but not low ferritin levels, are associated with worse prognosis.

Dr. Cleland agreed that the HF-oriented definition is “poor,” with profound implications for the conduct of clinical trials. “If the definition of iron deficiency lacks specificity, then clinical trials will include many patients without iron deficiency who are unlikely to benefit from and might be harmed by IV iron.” Inclusion of such patients may also “dilute” any benefit that might emerge and render the outcome inaccurate.

But if the definition of iron deficiency lacks sensitivity, “then in clinical practice, many patients with iron deficiency may be denied a simple and effective treatment.”

Measuring serum iron could potentially be useful, but it’s usually not done in randomized trials “especially since taking an iron tablet can give a temporary ‘blip’ in serum iron,” Dr. Cleland said. “So TSAT is a reasonable compromise.” He said he “looks forward” to any further data on serum iron as a way of assessing iron deficiency and anemia.
 

Half full vs. half empty

Dr. Cleland likened the question of whom to treat with iron supplementation as a “glass half full versus half empty” clinical dilemma. “One approach is to give iron to everyone unless there’s evidence that they’re overloaded,” he said, “while the other is to withhold iron from everyone unless there’s evidence that they’re iron depleted.”

Recent evidence from the IRONMAN trial suggested that its patients with HF who received intravenous iron were less likely to be hospitalized for infections, particularly COVID-19, than a usual-care group. The treatment may also help reduce frailty.

“So should we be offering IV iron specifically to people considered iron deficient, or should we be ensuring that everyone over age 70 get iron supplements?” Dr. Cleland mused rhetorically. On a cautionary note, he added, perhaps iron supplementation will be harmful if it’s not necessary.

Dr. Cleland proposed “focusing for the moment on people who are iron deficient but investigating the possibility that we are being overly restrictive and should be giving iron to a much broader population.” That course, however, would require large population-based studies.

“We need more experience,” Dr. Cleland said, “to make sure that the benefits outweigh any risks before we can just give iron to everyone.”

Dr. Martens has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Cleland declares grant support, support for travel, and personal honoraria from Pharmacosmos and Vifor. Disclosures for other authors are in the published report and editorial.

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

A cohort study of patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH) has questioned the guideline definition of iron deficiency and the criteria used to identify and potentially treat it, with implications that may extend to cardiovascular disease in general.

In the study involving more than 900 patients with PH, investigators at seven U.S. centers determined the prevalence of iron deficiency by two separate definitions and assessed its associations with functional measures and quality of life (QoL) scores.

An iron deficiency definition used conventionally in heart failure (HF) – ferritin less than 100 g/mL or 100-299 ng/mL with transferrin saturation (TSAT) less than 20% – failed to discriminate patients with reduced peak oxygen consumption (peakVO2), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) results, and QoL scores on the 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36).

But an alternative definition for iron deficiency, simply a TSAT less than 21%, did predict such patients with reduced peakVO2, 6MWT, and QoL. It was also associated with an increased mortality risk. The study was published in the European Heart Journal.

“A low TSAT, less than 21%, is key in the pathophysiology of iron deficiency in pulmonary hypertension” and is associated with those important clinical and functional characteristics, lead author Pieter Martens MD, PhD, said in an interview. The study “underscores the importance of these criteria in future intervention studies in the field of pulmonary hypertension testing iron therapies.”

A broader implication is that “we should revise how we define iron deficiency in heart failure and cardiovascular disease in general and how we select patients for iron therapies,” said Dr. Martens, of the Heart, Vascular & Thoracic Institute of the Cleveland Clinic.
 

Iron’s role in pulmonary vascular disease

“Iron deficiency is associated with an energetic deficit, especially in high energy–demanding tissue, leading to early skeletal muscle acidification and diminished left and right ventricular (RV) contractile reserve during exercise,” the published report states. It can lead to “maladaptive RV remodeling,” which is a “hallmark feature” predictive of morbidity and mortality in patients with pulmonary vascular disease (PVD).

Some studies have suggested that iron deficiency is a common comorbidity in patients with PVD, their estimates of its prevalence ranging widely due in part to the “absence of a uniform definition,” write the authors.

Dr. Martens said the current study was conducted partly in response to the increasingly common observation that the HF-associated definition of iron deficiency “has limitations.” Yet, “without validation in the field of pulmonary hypertension, the 2022 pulmonary hypertension guidelines endorse this definition.”

As iron deficiency is a causal risk factor for HF progression, Dr. Martens added, the HF field has “taught us the importance of using validated definitions for iron deficiency when selecting patients for iron treatment in randomized controlled trials.”

Moreover, some evidence suggests that iron deficiency by some definitions may be associated with diminished exercise capacity and QoL in patients with PVD, which are associations that have not been confirmed in large studies, the report notes.

Therefore, it continues, the study sought to “determine and validate” the optimal definition of iron deficiency in patients with PVD; document its prevalence; and explore associations between iron deficiency and exercise capacity, QoL, and cardiac and pulmonary vascular remodeling.
 

Evaluating definitions of iron deficiency

The prospective study, called PVDOMICS, entered 1,195 subjects with available iron levels. After exclusion of 38 patients with sarcoidosis, myeloproliferative disease, or hemoglobinopathy, there remained 693 patients with “overt” PH, 225 with a milder form of PH who served as PVD comparators, and 90 age-, sex-, race/ethnicity- matched “healthy” adults who served as controls.

According to the conventional HF definition of iron deficiency – that is, ferritin 100-299 ng/mL and TSAT less than 20% – the prevalences were 74% in patients with overt PH and 72% of those “across the PVD spectrum.”

But by that definition, iron deficient and non-iron deficient patients didn’t differ significantly in peakVO2, 6MWT distance, or SF-36 physical component scores.

In contrast, patients meeting the alternative definition of iron deficiency of TSAT less than 21% showed significantly reduced functional and QoL measures, compared with those with TSAT greater than or equal to 21%.

Broader implications

An accompanying editorial agrees that the study’s implications apply well beyond PH. It highlights that iron deficiency is common in PH, while such PH is “not substantially different from the problem in patients with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease in general,” lead editorialist John G.F. Cleland, MD, PhD, University of Glasgow, said in an interview. “It’s also common as people get older, even in those without these diseases.”

Dr. Cleland said the anemia definition currently used in cardiovascular research and practice is based on a hemoglobin concentration below the 5th percentile of age and sex in primarily young, healthy people, and not on its association with clinical outcomes.

“We recently analyzed data on a large population in the United Kingdom with a broad range of cardiovascular diseases and found that unless anemia is severe, [other] markers of iron deficiency are usually not measured,” he said. A low hemoglobin and TSAT, but not low ferritin levels, are associated with worse prognosis.

Dr. Cleland agreed that the HF-oriented definition is “poor,” with profound implications for the conduct of clinical trials. “If the definition of iron deficiency lacks specificity, then clinical trials will include many patients without iron deficiency who are unlikely to benefit from and might be harmed by IV iron.” Inclusion of such patients may also “dilute” any benefit that might emerge and render the outcome inaccurate.

But if the definition of iron deficiency lacks sensitivity, “then in clinical practice, many patients with iron deficiency may be denied a simple and effective treatment.”

Measuring serum iron could potentially be useful, but it’s usually not done in randomized trials “especially since taking an iron tablet can give a temporary ‘blip’ in serum iron,” Dr. Cleland said. “So TSAT is a reasonable compromise.” He said he “looks forward” to any further data on serum iron as a way of assessing iron deficiency and anemia.
 

Half full vs. half empty

Dr. Cleland likened the question of whom to treat with iron supplementation as a “glass half full versus half empty” clinical dilemma. “One approach is to give iron to everyone unless there’s evidence that they’re overloaded,” he said, “while the other is to withhold iron from everyone unless there’s evidence that they’re iron depleted.”

Recent evidence from the IRONMAN trial suggested that its patients with HF who received intravenous iron were less likely to be hospitalized for infections, particularly COVID-19, than a usual-care group. The treatment may also help reduce frailty.

“So should we be offering IV iron specifically to people considered iron deficient, or should we be ensuring that everyone over age 70 get iron supplements?” Dr. Cleland mused rhetorically. On a cautionary note, he added, perhaps iron supplementation will be harmful if it’s not necessary.

Dr. Cleland proposed “focusing for the moment on people who are iron deficient but investigating the possibility that we are being overly restrictive and should be giving iron to a much broader population.” That course, however, would require large population-based studies.

“We need more experience,” Dr. Cleland said, “to make sure that the benefits outweigh any risks before we can just give iron to everyone.”

Dr. Martens has received consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Cleland declares grant support, support for travel, and personal honoraria from Pharmacosmos and Vifor. Disclosures for other authors are in the published report and editorial.

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

Adults aged 60 or older who took high monthly doses of vitamin D for 5 years failed to show a significant drop in risk for cardiovascular (CV) events in general but may have benefited for other CV outcomes in an analysis from a large prospective randomized trial.

Risk reductions on vitamin D in the mixed primary- and secondary-prevention population were slight in absolute terms but reached a significant 19% in the case of myocardial infarction (MI).

Over 5 years, 6.6% of those in placebo group experienced major CV events, the primary endpoint, compared with 6% in the vitamin D group. The difference, which corresponded to 5.8 fewer events per 1,000 participants, was short of significance in adjusted analysis.

Benefits minimal

The 21,302 patients in the D-Health trial, conducted in Australia from 2014 to 2020, were randomly assigned double-blind to receive either placebo or vitamin D3 supplements for a planned 5 years. They were instructed to take one placebo or vitamin D capsule per month, each active capsule containing 60,000 IU of the vitamin.

People with self-reported hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, kidney stones, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis, and those taking greater than 500 IU/day vitamin D supplements were excluded from enrollment. Participants ranged in age from 60 to 84 at randomization and 46% were women.

With 80% of the 10,658 participants assigned to vitamin D and 78% of the 10,644 control subjects completing the 5-year intervention, 6% and 6.6%, respectively, met the primary endpoint of a major CV event, defined as MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

The hazard ratio for a vitamin-D effect on the primary endpoint was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.01). The number needed to treat to avoid one major CV event was 172.

The HR for MI was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.98), for coronary intervention was 0.89 (0.78-1.01), and for stroke was 0.99 (0.80-1.23).

Adverse event rates were similar at about 16% in both groups and included hypercalcemia, kidney stones, gastrointestinal issues, and skin rash.

Vitamin D at moderate dosages has low toxicity, Dr. Neale said, “so I think it would be reasonable for clinicians to consider supplementing elderly people who do not have contraindications, particularly those who have underlying risk factors for CV disease,” Dr. Neale said. But patients should be told that the evidence for such a recommendation is not strong, so they can make an informed decision, she added.

Also, in general “we would be cautious about extrapolating to formulations other than those used in the study,” Dr. Neale said. “However, in this case, I think it would be reasonable to extrapolate to the use of 2,000 IU per day taken orally, provided that the same adherence can be maintained for a lengthy period.”
 

Chance findings?

Based on the current study and in light of prior research, “it is premature to recommend vitamin D supplementation for cardiovascular disease prevention specifically,” Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“Prior clinical trials did not show an association between vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events,” observed Dr. Makarem, who is not affiliated with the current study. Also, she agreed, it looked at “multiple outcomes, which increases the likelihood that findings may be due to chance.”

She added that the study’s authors observed a possible vitamin-D protective effect “among people who were vitamin D sufficient at baseline but not among those who were insufficient. It is important to interpret this finding with caution because they used predicted, not measured, vitamin D status for these analyses.”

There’s a need for studies in other populations, including younger persons and “particularly populations with higher rates of vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Makarem observed. Also, further research should aim to “understand the interactions between vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular medications, including statins.” 

The D-Health Trial is funded by National Health and Medical Research Council project grants. Dr. Neale was supported by fellowships from the NHMRC. Neither she nor Dr. Makarem reported any relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults aged 60 or older who took high monthly doses of vitamin D for 5 years failed to show a significant drop in risk for cardiovascular (CV) events in general but may have benefited for other CV outcomes in an analysis from a large prospective randomized trial.

Risk reductions on vitamin D in the mixed primary- and secondary-prevention population were slight in absolute terms but reached a significant 19% in the case of myocardial infarction (MI).

Over 5 years, 6.6% of those in placebo group experienced major CV events, the primary endpoint, compared with 6% in the vitamin D group. The difference, which corresponded to 5.8 fewer events per 1,000 participants, was short of significance in adjusted analysis.

Benefits minimal

The 21,302 patients in the D-Health trial, conducted in Australia from 2014 to 2020, were randomly assigned double-blind to receive either placebo or vitamin D3 supplements for a planned 5 years. They were instructed to take one placebo or vitamin D capsule per month, each active capsule containing 60,000 IU of the vitamin.

People with self-reported hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, kidney stones, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis, and those taking greater than 500 IU/day vitamin D supplements were excluded from enrollment. Participants ranged in age from 60 to 84 at randomization and 46% were women.

With 80% of the 10,658 participants assigned to vitamin D and 78% of the 10,644 control subjects completing the 5-year intervention, 6% and 6.6%, respectively, met the primary endpoint of a major CV event, defined as MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

The hazard ratio for a vitamin-D effect on the primary endpoint was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.01). The number needed to treat to avoid one major CV event was 172.

The HR for MI was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.98), for coronary intervention was 0.89 (0.78-1.01), and for stroke was 0.99 (0.80-1.23).

Adverse event rates were similar at about 16% in both groups and included hypercalcemia, kidney stones, gastrointestinal issues, and skin rash.

Vitamin D at moderate dosages has low toxicity, Dr. Neale said, “so I think it would be reasonable for clinicians to consider supplementing elderly people who do not have contraindications, particularly those who have underlying risk factors for CV disease,” Dr. Neale said. But patients should be told that the evidence for such a recommendation is not strong, so they can make an informed decision, she added.

Also, in general “we would be cautious about extrapolating to formulations other than those used in the study,” Dr. Neale said. “However, in this case, I think it would be reasonable to extrapolate to the use of 2,000 IU per day taken orally, provided that the same adherence can be maintained for a lengthy period.”
 

Chance findings?

Based on the current study and in light of prior research, “it is premature to recommend vitamin D supplementation for cardiovascular disease prevention specifically,” Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“Prior clinical trials did not show an association between vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events,” observed Dr. Makarem, who is not affiliated with the current study. Also, she agreed, it looked at “multiple outcomes, which increases the likelihood that findings may be due to chance.”

She added that the study’s authors observed a possible vitamin-D protective effect “among people who were vitamin D sufficient at baseline but not among those who were insufficient. It is important to interpret this finding with caution because they used predicted, not measured, vitamin D status for these analyses.”

There’s a need for studies in other populations, including younger persons and “particularly populations with higher rates of vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Makarem observed. Also, further research should aim to “understand the interactions between vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular medications, including statins.” 

The D-Health Trial is funded by National Health and Medical Research Council project grants. Dr. Neale was supported by fellowships from the NHMRC. Neither she nor Dr. Makarem reported any relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults aged 60 or older who took high monthly doses of vitamin D for 5 years failed to show a significant drop in risk for cardiovascular (CV) events in general but may have benefited for other CV outcomes in an analysis from a large prospective randomized trial.

Risk reductions on vitamin D in the mixed primary- and secondary-prevention population were slight in absolute terms but reached a significant 19% in the case of myocardial infarction (MI).

Over 5 years, 6.6% of those in placebo group experienced major CV events, the primary endpoint, compared with 6% in the vitamin D group. The difference, which corresponded to 5.8 fewer events per 1,000 participants, was short of significance in adjusted analysis.

Benefits minimal

The 21,302 patients in the D-Health trial, conducted in Australia from 2014 to 2020, were randomly assigned double-blind to receive either placebo or vitamin D3 supplements for a planned 5 years. They were instructed to take one placebo or vitamin D capsule per month, each active capsule containing 60,000 IU of the vitamin.

People with self-reported hypercalcemia, hyperparathyroidism, kidney stones, osteomalacia, or sarcoidosis, and those taking greater than 500 IU/day vitamin D supplements were excluded from enrollment. Participants ranged in age from 60 to 84 at randomization and 46% were women.

With 80% of the 10,658 participants assigned to vitamin D and 78% of the 10,644 control subjects completing the 5-year intervention, 6% and 6.6%, respectively, met the primary endpoint of a major CV event, defined as MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization.

The hazard ratio for a vitamin-D effect on the primary endpoint was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.01). The number needed to treat to avoid one major CV event was 172.

The HR for MI was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.67-0.98), for coronary intervention was 0.89 (0.78-1.01), and for stroke was 0.99 (0.80-1.23).

Adverse event rates were similar at about 16% in both groups and included hypercalcemia, kidney stones, gastrointestinal issues, and skin rash.

Vitamin D at moderate dosages has low toxicity, Dr. Neale said, “so I think it would be reasonable for clinicians to consider supplementing elderly people who do not have contraindications, particularly those who have underlying risk factors for CV disease,” Dr. Neale said. But patients should be told that the evidence for such a recommendation is not strong, so they can make an informed decision, she added.

Also, in general “we would be cautious about extrapolating to formulations other than those used in the study,” Dr. Neale said. “However, in this case, I think it would be reasonable to extrapolate to the use of 2,000 IU per day taken orally, provided that the same adherence can be maintained for a lengthy period.”
 

Chance findings?

Based on the current study and in light of prior research, “it is premature to recommend vitamin D supplementation for cardiovascular disease prevention specifically,” Nour Makarem, PhD, of the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“Prior clinical trials did not show an association between vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events,” observed Dr. Makarem, who is not affiliated with the current study. Also, she agreed, it looked at “multiple outcomes, which increases the likelihood that findings may be due to chance.”

She added that the study’s authors observed a possible vitamin-D protective effect “among people who were vitamin D sufficient at baseline but not among those who were insufficient. It is important to interpret this finding with caution because they used predicted, not measured, vitamin D status for these analyses.”

There’s a need for studies in other populations, including younger persons and “particularly populations with higher rates of vitamin D deficiency,” Dr. Makarem observed. Also, further research should aim to “understand the interactions between vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular medications, including statins.” 

The D-Health Trial is funded by National Health and Medical Research Council project grants. Dr. Neale was supported by fellowships from the NHMRC. Neither she nor Dr. Makarem reported any relevant financial relationships.

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation/replacement (TAVI/TAVR) is typically the domain of cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists.

In the United Kingdom, John Steele, an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) at Glenfield Hospital, part of the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), was congratulated on Twitter as “the first nurse-ANP who has performed the whole TAVI procedure as the first operator – true transformation addressing NHS needs.”

Could it happen in the U.S.?

Could a U.S.-based nurse practitioner perform TAVR? Possibly. Should they? No, says Andrew M. Goldsweig, MD, chair of the U.S. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Structural Heart Council. “Experienced nurse practitioners who have participated as secondary operators in many TAVR procedures and have observed the primary physician operators likely know the technical steps involved in an uncomplicated transfemoral TAVR procedure,” he told this news organization.

“However, a physician’s depth and breadth of training are absolutely required both to recognize and to address any periprocedural issues,” said Dr. Goldsweig, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory and director of cardiovascular clinical research at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass.
 

What it takes to do TAVR

Transcatheter aortic valves were first approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in patients with severe, inoperable, aortic stenosis. The procedure is now increasingly used as an alternative to surgical AVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients and has a longer history in Europe.

Dr. Goldsweig notes that “TAVR is a complex procedure with many potential challenges. Physicians are trained to diagnose and manage vascular access complications, heart failure and respiratory complications, rhythm disturbances, stroke, paravalvular leak, valve malpositioning/embolization, cardiogenic shock, and any other issues that may arise in the peri-TAVR period.

“Physicians can perform vascular imaging and interventions, transition to alternative access, manage intubation and ventilation, facilitate embolectomy, place a pacemaker, close a paravalvular leak, capture a misplaced valve, deploy mechanical circulatory support, and perform other diagnostic and interventional procedures as necessary that are required for TAVR operators and vastly exceed the training and scope of a nurse practitioner.”

The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI advanced training statement on interventional cardiology defines select competencies for interventional cardiologists who choose to focus their career on peripheral, vascular, or structural heart interventions.

In a recent article in Structural Heart, Dr. Goldsweig and colleagues write, “Training in SHD [structural heart disease] has historically been fragmented and informal. Current modes of SHD training include unaccredited fellowship training, industry-sponsored forums and device-specific training, and training through on-site proctorship.”

Such programs have grown “exponentially,” they write, “despite the conspicuous absence of formalized training requirements.”

In response to the John Steele uproar, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society posted a statement on its website, noting, “As medicine has changed so there has increasingly been a role for allied health practitioners with advanced skills to take on responsibilities that were previously considered to be the domain of doctors ...

“TAVI procedures however carry a mortality risk, and the responsibility for undertaking a successful TAVI procedure will always lie with a Cardiologist who has had the breadth of training to manage the various complications that may occur during or after a procedure. This requires years of training, and there is no short-cut, or substitute.”

The BCIS promises a statement “later in the year [on] the expected training route for undertaking TAVI and other structural heart procedures.”
 

Why it matters: Scope creep

Despite the current upheaval, it’s not the first time that a nurse in the United Kingdom has performed a procedure normally performed by a medical doctor. A 3-year-old Reddit post on r/JuniorDoctorsUK points to a 2017 Guardian article titled, “Meet the nurse who will soon perform surgery on patients alone.” Although the “surgical care practitioner” seems to be performing within the scope of her practice, people responding to the post say it’s an example of “mid-level [scope] creep.”

More recently, a Reddit post in the same group points to a congratulatory post for a “nurse-led radial access.” One person commented, “Today they do the access. Tomorrow they do the full diagnostic. Day after they do the pressure wire. Next week they do the PCI [percutaneous coronary intervention].”

Broadly, “scope creep” refers to scope-of-practice expansions, but not turf wars, according to Rebekah Bernard, MD, a family physician in Fort Myers, Fla., who cowrote, “Patients at Risk: The Rise of the Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant in Healthcare,” with Niran Al-Agba, MD, a pediatrician in Silverdale, Wash.

The reasons behind U.K. scope creep aren’t clear. Some believe it’s money. Some say the system is broken and that doctors are being exploited.

In relation to the NP-TAVI case, the British Junior Cardiologist Association commented that it reflects a lack of support and advocacy for medical/surgical trainees who need the training opportunities that are going instead to allied health professionals.

In the United States, scope creep is being taken seriously (some may say too seriously) by the American Medical Association. The AMA is lobbying to stop “inappropriate scope expansions,” bolstered by its AMA Scope of Practice Partnership.

Pointing to a scope creep video produced by the AMA, one JuniorDoctorsUK Reddit post asks, “why isn’t the BMA doing anything similar?”
 

Time for a rethink?

Back to Glenfield Hospital. Not only has Cardiology Glenfield deleted the controversial tweet; it is now is backtracking on its congratulations to ANP Steele, tweeting, “We want to make clear that the lead operator for the procedure was a consultant structural interventionist. However, we are looking into the circumstances, including a review of clinical governance.” From the responses, few clinicians are buying that explanation.

In response to a request for a comment from Glenfield, Andrew Furlong, UHL medical director, reiterated to this news organization through communications manager Gareth Duggan, “We are investigating the circumstances of the procedure with our cardiology team and reviewing our governance processes.”

Dr. Goldsweig participated in a past speaking engagement for Edwards Lifesciences.

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

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of colchicine 0.5 mg (Lodoco) for use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention will possibly create opportunities to use the drug to treat residual risk for ASCVD in some patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, particularly in rheumatology.

Potential in rheumatology

The 0.5-mg dose is just a shade under the 0.6-mg, twice daily dosing rheumatologists typically prescribe for gout, Christie Bartels, MD, MS, chief of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview. Clinicians also use the 0.6-mg dose off-label for pseudogout or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD), Dr. Bartels noted.

University of Wisconsin

The new formulation opens the consideration for using colchicine more in patients with psoriatic arthritis, lupus, and rheumatoid arthritis, she said. “I think we could certainly discuss it, particularly, in secondary prevention patients who already had an event or who are at the highest risk and already on optimal traditional agents,” she said.

She cited previous comments by Paul Ridker, MD, director of the center for cardiovascular disease prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and developer of the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) test for measuring inflammatory markers. “We might not know the answer because Dr. Ridker pointed out he used colchicine 0.5 mg in patients that had a high-sensitivity CRP that was high; we need patients who have had inflammation of unknown origin, so those patients presumably weren’t already on another anti-inflammatory,” she said, noting that hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, and some biologics provide some protection from cardiovascular risks.

However, a potential role for long-term colchicine 0.5 mg in ASCVD prevention may cause consideration for changing the drug’s role in gout treatment, Dr. Bartels said. “In gout, where we do have an FDA-approved indication for colchicine, we used to use it only for the first 6 months while we were getting patients to goal on allopurinol, which was usually then monotherapy after the first 6 months,” she said. “I think this will likely change how I treat gout patients in that I may also offer to continue both medications [colchicine and allopurinol] if they are tolerating them well.

“And then in patients where I’m using it off-label in CPPD, I might again share with them that in addition to possibly helping their CPPD, there may be this added benefit to reduce inflammation just in discussing the risks and benefits of the medicine.”

However, rheumatologists must be careful in using colchicine beyond the typical 6-month cycle, Dr. Bartels said. “One of the tricky things with colchicine, and part of the reason we did not traditionally continue it specifically past the first 6 months, was that it can cause myopathies or cytopenias, so we still have to counsel patients regarding these risks and monitor that,” she said.

Additionally, colchicine can have drug interactions with statins or calcium channel blockers that can change colchicine levels. “I think the dose here is so low, the 0.5 mg, that it’s probably still safe, but again, it’s something that we have to take a look at in the patient’s whole picture and the rest of their burden of their meds in order to make a decision with them,” Dr. Bartels said.

Possibilities in dermatology

The LoDoCo2 trial one of two major randomized trials that supported approval of colchicine 0.5 mg, reported that treated patients had a 60% lower rate of gout than the placebo group (1.4% vs. 3.4%). Joel Gelfand, MD, MSCE, the James J. Leyden professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pointed to this in evaluating the dermatologic implications of the drug’s approval. “This may be of particular interest as people with psoriasis have an increased risk of gout,” he said in emailed comments.

University of Pennsylvania

Colchicine’s mechanism of action to reduce inflammation parallels that of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for dermatologic indications, namely by inhibiting leukocyte adhesion to disrupt the downregulation of TNF receptors, Dr. Gelfand said.

“Interestingly, observational data suggests biologics that target TNF such as adalimumab, etanercept, etc., are associated with a reduction in CV events, and in placebo-controlled trials we conducted in psoriasis patients, it reduced key inflammatory mediators of cardiovascular disease, including IL [interleukin]-6,” he said. “Randomized clinical trials to evaluate the ability of TNF inhibitors, which are now available as biosimilars, to prevent cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, should be conducted, and more work is needed to identify which additional immune-targeted treatments may lower CV risk with an acceptable safety profile.”

Colchicine currently has few indications for rare conditions in dermatology, Dr. Gelfand said, including Sweets syndrome, subcorneal pustular dermatosis, and cutaneous vasculitis. “There are some reports to suggest it may help psoriatic disease, but current data are limited and insufficient to recommend its use for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis,” he said.

The approval of colchicine 0.5 mg for ASCVD could be meaningful for people with psoriasis who are also being treated for CV risk factors, Dr. Gelfand said. “Additional considerations such as signs of residual inflammation (elevated hsCRP) and CV imaging findings may be used to further guide shared decision-making for optimal use,” he said.

Another consideration he noted: “This is also a novel 0.5-mg formulation, and thus cost may be an issue.”
 

Would side effects bar use in gastroenterology?

Colchicine 0.5 mg may not move the needle much for expanding treatment of ASCVD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and potentially other gastrointestinal conditions, Edward Loftus Jr., MD, the Maxine and Jack Zarrow Family professor of gastroenterology specifically for IBD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told MDEdge in emailed comments. “Given the GI side effect profile [of colchicine], I am not sure I would go there,” he said.

Mayo Clinic

“Hopefully, the prescribers of this low-dose formulation are aware of the gastrointestinal side effects, such as diarrhea and nausea, and educate patients about these side effects so that a proper risk-benefit discussion can ensue,” he said.

Dr. Bartels reporting a previous financial relationship with Pfizer. Dr. Gelfand said he has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celldex, GlaxoSmithKline, Twill, Lilly, Leo, Moonlake, Janssen Biologics, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Neuroderm, and Veolia North America. Dr. Loftus disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Alvotech, Amgen, Arena, Avalo, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene/Receptos, Celltrion Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Iterative Health, Janssen, KSL Diagnostics, Morphic, Ono, Pfizer, Sun, Surrozen, Takeda, Theravance, and UCB.
 

It was one of those dog days of August where the humidity is palpable and the pressure is so hot and thick you can almost feel the ions in the air. At the time (2022), I was a White House fellow and senior adviser in the West Wing Office of Public Engagement and in the Office of the Vice President.

I was leaving the White House around 7:00 p.m. through the front gate on Lafayette Square. I had a dinner reservation with a friend, so I was in a rush. It was super overcast. Lo and behold, three steps after I closed the gate behind me, it started pouring. Rain came down so hard I had to take shelter.

There’s a stone building in front of the White House with archways, so I took cover underneath one of them, hoping that in a couple of minutes the rain would pass. Behind the archways are these thick, black, iron gates.

Just as I was about to make a run for it, I heard: BOOM!

It was like a bomb had gone off. In one moment, I saw the lightning bolt, heard the thunder, and felt the heat. It was all one rush of sensation. I couldn’t remember having been that scared in a long time.

I thought, “I definitely have to get out of here. In a couple of minutes there might be another strike, and I’m sitting next to iron gates!” I saw a little bit of a window in the downpour, so I started booking it. I knew there was a sheltered Secret Service area around the corner where they park their cars. A much safer place to be.

I was sprinting on the sidewalk and spotted a bunch of Secret Service agents on their bikes riding in the opposite direction, back toward the park. I knew they wouldn’t be out on bikes in this mess without a reason. As they reached me, one agent said, “Clear the sidewalk! We’re coming through with a bunch of equipment.”

I yelled, “What’s going on?”

“Four people were just struck by lightning,” he said as he zoomed past.

I thought: “Sh*t. I have to go back.”

It was like two different parts of my brain were active at the exact same time. My subcortical brain at the level of the amygdala was like: “You just ran from there, idiot. Why are you running back?” And another part of my brain was like: “This is who you are.”

The lightning had struck one of the largest trees in the park. Four bodies splayed out in one direction from the tree. They’d been taking shelter underneath it when they were hit and were blown off to one side. By the time I got there, two Secret Service agents were on the scene doing CPR. Some bystanders had started to run over.

I did a quick round of pulse checks to see everyone’s status, and all four were apneic and pulseless. I told the two Secret Service agents to keep doing compressions on the first person. Two bystanders also began compressions on another person, an older man.

More Secret Service agents arrived, and I said, “We need to do compressions on this other person right now.” One of the agents took a moment to question who I could be and why I was there. I said, “I’m a doctor. I know I’m not dressed like one, but I’m a physician.”

I told some agents to go find an AED, because these people needed to be shocked.

After they left, I was effectively trying to triage which of these four people would get the AED first. Initially, I spent more of my time on the young man, and we began to get some response from him. I then spent some time with the young woman.

It turned out there were AEDs in the pouches on the Secret Service bikes, but they were very small, dinky AEDs. We tried to apply the pads, but it was downpouring so much that the adhesive wouldn’t stick. I told one of the agents we needed a towel.

Through all this I was concerned we were going to be struck again. I mean, the metal statue of Lafayette was right there! They say lighting doesn’t strike in the same place twice, but who knows if that’s really true?

The towel arrived, and we were able to get the chests of the younger people dry enough for the AED pads. We applied two shocks first to the woman, then the young man. We got his pulse back quickly. The woman’s came back as well, but it felt much weaker.

EMS arrived shortly thereafter. We got all four patients on the transport, and they were transferred to the hospital.

The whole experience had taken 14 minutes.

At the time, I felt confident that the young man was going to survive. We’re taught that lightning bolt strikes are survivable if you can shock someone quickly. He also got pretty good CPR. But the next day I was watching the news and learned that he had passed away. So, of course I was thinking the worst about the others as well.

But a week and a half later, I learned that the young woman had been discharged from the ICU. She was the only one who made it. Her name is Amber, and we got connected through a reporter. About 2 weeks later, I invited her to the White House. I took her to the Oval Office. I met her mom and dad and husband, and we had dinner. We’ve been in touch ever since.

I remember the first time we talked on the phone, Amber said something along the lines of, “This sucks. Obviously, I was not planning for any of this to happen. But I also think there’s something good that could come from this.”

I was so surprised and happy to hear her say that. I had something similar happen to me when I was a teenager – caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I tried to intervene in a gang fight in my neighborhood. I thought a kid was going to get killed, so I jumped in, imagining I could save the day. I didn’t. They broke a bunch of my bones and I was in the hospital for a bit.

I remember thinking then that my life was over. But after some time, I found a new perspective, which was: Maybe that life is over. But maybe this could be the beginning of a new one. And maybe those things that I’ve been afraid of doing, the dreams that I have, maybe now I’m actually free to go after them.

I told Amber, if there are things that you have been waiting to do, this could be the time. She wants to be an international human rights activist, and she is kicking butt in a graduate school program to begin on that pathway. It’s been really cool to watch her chase this dream with way more vigor than she had before.

I think we bonded because we’ve gone through – obviously not the same thing, but a similar moment of being confronted with your own mortality. Realizing that life can just shatter. And so, while we’re here, we might as well go for it with all the force of a person who knows this could all disappear in an instant.

It was an extremely humbling moment. It reaffirmed that my life is not about me. I have to use the time that I’ve got on behalf of other people as much as I can. What is my life about if not being useful?

Dr. Martin is an emergency medicine physician and faculty member at the MGH Center for Social Justice and Health Equity at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

It was one of those dog days of August where the humidity is palpable and the pressure is so hot and thick you can almost feel the ions in the air. At the time (2022), I was a White House fellow and senior adviser in the West Wing Office of Public Engagement and in the Office of the Vice President.

I was leaving the White House around 7:00 p.m. through the front gate on Lafayette Square. I had a dinner reservation with a friend, so I was in a rush. It was super overcast. Lo and behold, three steps after I closed the gate behind me, it started pouring. Rain came down so hard I had to take shelter.

There’s a stone building in front of the White House with archways, so I took cover underneath one of them, hoping that in a couple of minutes the rain would pass. Behind the archways are these thick, black, iron gates.

Just as I was about to make a run for it, I heard: BOOM!

It was like a bomb had gone off. In one moment, I saw the lightning bolt, heard the thunder, and felt the heat. It was all one rush of sensation. I couldn’t remember having been that scared in a long time.

I thought, “I definitely have to get out of here. In a couple of minutes there might be another strike, and I’m sitting next to iron gates!” I saw a little bit of a window in the downpour, so I started booking it. I knew there was a sheltered Secret Service area around the corner where they park their cars. A much safer place to be.

I was sprinting on the sidewalk and spotted a bunch of Secret Service agents on their bikes riding in the opposite direction, back toward the park. I knew they wouldn’t be out on bikes in this mess without a reason. As they reached me, one agent said, “Clear the sidewalk! We’re coming through with a bunch of equipment.”

I yelled, “What’s going on?”

“Four people were just struck by lightning,” he said as he zoomed past.

I thought: “Sh*t. I have to go back.”

It was like two different parts of my brain were active at the exact same time. My subcortical brain at the level of the amygdala was like: “You just ran from there, idiot. Why are you running back?” And another part of my brain was like: “This is who you are.”

The lightning had struck one of the largest trees in the park. Four bodies splayed out in one direction from the tree. They’d been taking shelter underneath it when they were hit and were blown off to one side. By the time I got there, two Secret Service agents were on the scene doing CPR. Some bystanders had started to run over.

I did a quick round of pulse checks to see everyone’s status, and all four were apneic and pulseless. I told the two Secret Service agents to keep doing compressions on the first person. Two bystanders also began compressions on another person, an older man.

More Secret Service agents arrived, and I said, “We need to do compressions on this other person right now.” One of the agents took a moment to question who I could be and why I was there. I said, “I’m a doctor. I know I’m not dressed like one, but I’m a physician.”

I told some agents to go find an AED, because these people needed to be shocked.

After they left, I was effectively trying to triage which of these four people would get the AED first. Initially, I spent more of my time on the young man, and we began to get some response from him. I then spent some time with the young woman.

It turned out there were AEDs in the pouches on the Secret Service bikes, but they were very small, dinky AEDs. We tried to apply the pads, but it was downpouring so much that the adhesive wouldn’t stick. I told one of the agents we needed a towel.

Through all this I was concerned we were going to be struck again. I mean, the metal statue of Lafayette was right there! They say lighting doesn’t strike in the same place twice, but who knows if that’s really true?

The towel arrived, and we were able to get the chests of the younger people dry enough for the AED pads. We applied two shocks first to the woman, then the young man. We got his pulse back quickly. The woman’s came back as well, but it felt much weaker.

EMS arrived shortly thereafter. We got all four patients on the transport, and they were transferred to the hospital.

The whole experience had taken 14 minutes.

At the time, I felt confident that the young man was going to survive. We’re taught that lightning bolt strikes are survivable if you can shock someone quickly. He also got pretty good CPR. But the next day I was watching the news and learned that he had passed away. So, of course I was thinking the worst about the others as well.

But a week and a half later, I learned that the young woman had been discharged from the ICU. She was the only one who made it. Her name is Amber, and we got connected through a reporter. About 2 weeks later, I invited her to the White House. I took her to the Oval Office. I met her mom and dad and husband, and we had dinner. We’ve been in touch ever since.

I remember the first time we talked on the phone, Amber said something along the lines of, “This sucks. Obviously, I was not planning for any of this to happen. But I also think there’s something good that could come from this.”

I was so surprised and happy to hear her say that. I had something similar happen to me when I was a teenager – caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I tried to intervene in a gang fight in my neighborhood. I thought a kid was going to get killed, so I jumped in, imagining I could save the day. I didn’t. They broke a bunch of my bones and I was in the hospital for a bit.

I remember thinking then that my life was over. But after some time, I found a new perspective, which was: Maybe that life is over. But maybe this could be the beginning of a new one. And maybe those things that I’ve been afraid of doing, the dreams that I have, maybe now I’m actually free to go after them.

I told Amber, if there are things that you have been waiting to do, this could be the time. She wants to be an international human rights activist, and she is kicking butt in a graduate school program to begin on that pathway. It’s been really cool to watch her chase this dream with way more vigor than she had before.

I think we bonded because we’ve gone through – obviously not the same thing, but a similar moment of being confronted with your own mortality. Realizing that life can just shatter. And so, while we’re here, we might as well go for it with all the force of a person who knows this could all disappear in an instant.

It was an extremely humbling moment. It reaffirmed that my life is not about me. I have to use the time that I’ve got on behalf of other people as much as I can. What is my life about if not being useful?

Dr. Martin is an emergency medicine physician and faculty member at the MGH Center for Social Justice and Health Equity at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

It was one of those dog days of August where the humidity is palpable and the pressure is so hot and thick you can almost feel the ions in the air. At the time (2022), I was a White House fellow and senior adviser in the West Wing Office of Public Engagement and in the Office of the Vice President.

I was leaving the White House around 7:00 p.m. through the front gate on Lafayette Square. I had a dinner reservation with a friend, so I was in a rush. It was super overcast. Lo and behold, three steps after I closed the gate behind me, it started pouring. Rain came down so hard I had to take shelter.

There’s a stone building in front of the White House with archways, so I took cover underneath one of them, hoping that in a couple of minutes the rain would pass. Behind the archways are these thick, black, iron gates.

Just as I was about to make a run for it, I heard: BOOM!

It was like a bomb had gone off. In one moment, I saw the lightning bolt, heard the thunder, and felt the heat. It was all one rush of sensation. I couldn’t remember having been that scared in a long time.

I thought, “I definitely have to get out of here. In a couple of minutes there might be another strike, and I’m sitting next to iron gates!” I saw a little bit of a window in the downpour, so I started booking it. I knew there was a sheltered Secret Service area around the corner where they park their cars. A much safer place to be.

I was sprinting on the sidewalk and spotted a bunch of Secret Service agents on their bikes riding in the opposite direction, back toward the park. I knew they wouldn’t be out on bikes in this mess without a reason. As they reached me, one agent said, “Clear the sidewalk! We’re coming through with a bunch of equipment.”

I yelled, “What’s going on?”

“Four people were just struck by lightning,” he said as he zoomed past.

I thought: “Sh*t. I have to go back.”

It was like two different parts of my brain were active at the exact same time. My subcortical brain at the level of the amygdala was like: “You just ran from there, idiot. Why are you running back?” And another part of my brain was like: “This is who you are.”

The lightning had struck one of the largest trees in the park. Four bodies splayed out in one direction from the tree. They’d been taking shelter underneath it when they were hit and were blown off to one side. By the time I got there, two Secret Service agents were on the scene doing CPR. Some bystanders had started to run over.

I did a quick round of pulse checks to see everyone’s status, and all four were apneic and pulseless. I told the two Secret Service agents to keep doing compressions on the first person. Two bystanders also began compressions on another person, an older man.

More Secret Service agents arrived, and I said, “We need to do compressions on this other person right now.” One of the agents took a moment to question who I could be and why I was there. I said, “I’m a doctor. I know I’m not dressed like one, but I’m a physician.”

I told some agents to go find an AED, because these people needed to be shocked.

After they left, I was effectively trying to triage which of these four people would get the AED first. Initially, I spent more of my time on the young man, and we began to get some response from him. I then spent some time with the young woman.

It turned out there were AEDs in the pouches on the Secret Service bikes, but they were very small, dinky AEDs. We tried to apply the pads, but it was downpouring so much that the adhesive wouldn’t stick. I told one of the agents we needed a towel.

Through all this I was concerned we were going to be struck again. I mean, the metal statue of Lafayette was right there! They say lighting doesn’t strike in the same place twice, but who knows if that’s really true?

The towel arrived, and we were able to get the chests of the younger people dry enough for the AED pads. We applied two shocks first to the woman, then the young man. We got his pulse back quickly. The woman’s came back as well, but it felt much weaker.

EMS arrived shortly thereafter. We got all four patients on the transport, and they were transferred to the hospital.

The whole experience had taken 14 minutes.

At the time, I felt confident that the young man was going to survive. We’re taught that lightning bolt strikes are survivable if you can shock someone quickly. He also got pretty good CPR. But the next day I was watching the news and learned that he had passed away. So, of course I was thinking the worst about the others as well.

But a week and a half later, I learned that the young woman had been discharged from the ICU. She was the only one who made it. Her name is Amber, and we got connected through a reporter. About 2 weeks later, I invited her to the White House. I took her to the Oval Office. I met her mom and dad and husband, and we had dinner. We’ve been in touch ever since.

I remember the first time we talked on the phone, Amber said something along the lines of, “This sucks. Obviously, I was not planning for any of this to happen. But I also think there’s something good that could come from this.”

I was so surprised and happy to hear her say that. I had something similar happen to me when I was a teenager – caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. I tried to intervene in a gang fight in my neighborhood. I thought a kid was going to get killed, so I jumped in, imagining I could save the day. I didn’t. They broke a bunch of my bones and I was in the hospital for a bit.

I remember thinking then that my life was over. But after some time, I found a new perspective, which was: Maybe that life is over. But maybe this could be the beginning of a new one. And maybe those things that I’ve been afraid of doing, the dreams that I have, maybe now I’m actually free to go after them.

I told Amber, if there are things that you have been waiting to do, this could be the time. She wants to be an international human rights activist, and she is kicking butt in a graduate school program to begin on that pathway. It’s been really cool to watch her chase this dream with way more vigor than she had before.

I think we bonded because we’ve gone through – obviously not the same thing, but a similar moment of being confronted with your own mortality. Realizing that life can just shatter. And so, while we’re here, we might as well go for it with all the force of a person who knows this could all disappear in an instant.

It was an extremely humbling moment. It reaffirmed that my life is not about me. I have to use the time that I’ve got on behalf of other people as much as I can. What is my life about if not being useful?

Dr. Martin is an emergency medicine physician and faculty member at the MGH Center for Social Justice and Health Equity at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

A “growing body of evidence” suggests that women and people from underrepresented patient groups experience disproportionately higher cardiovascular effects from new and emerging anticancer therapies, the writing group, led by Daniel Addison, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out.

For example, women appear to be at higher risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related toxicities, whereas Black patients with cancer face up to a threefold higher risk of cardiotoxicity with anticancer therapies.

With reduced screening and delayed preventive measures, Hispanic patients have more complex heart disease, cancer is diagnosed at later stages, and they receive more cardiotoxic regimens because of a lack of eligibility for novel treatments. Ultimately, this contributes to a higher incidence of treatment complications, cardiac dysfunction, and adverse patient outcomes for this patient group, they write.

Although no studies have specifically addressed cardio-oncology disparities in the LGBTQIA+ population, such disparities can be inferred from known cardiovascular disease and oncology disparities, the writing group noted.

These disparities are supported by “disparately high” risk of death after a cancer diagnosis among women and individuals from underrepresented groups, even after accounting for socioeconomic and behavioral patterns, they pointed out.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Evidence gaps and the path forward

“Despite advances in strategies to limit the risks of cardiovascular events among cancer survivors, relatively limited guidance is available to address the rapidly growing problem of disparate cardiotoxic risks among women and underrepresented patient populations,” the writing group said.

Decentralized and sporadic evaluations have led to a lack of consensus on the definitions, investigations, and potential optimal strategies to address disparate cardiotoxicity with contemporary cancer immunotherapy, as well as biologic and cytotoxic therapies, they noted.

They said caution is needed when interpreting clinical trial data about cardiotoxicity and in generalizing the results because people from diverse racial and ethnic groups have not been well represented in many trials.

The writing group outlined key evidence gaps and future research directions for addressing cardio-oncology disparities, as well as strategies to improve equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

These include the following:

• Identifying specific predictive factors of long-term cardiotoxic risk with targeted and immune-based cancer therapies in women and underrepresented populations.
• Investigating biological mechanisms that may underlie differences in cardiotoxicities between different patient groups.
• Developing personalized cardioprotection strategies that integrate biological, genetic, and social determinant markers.
• Intentionally diversifying clinical trials and identifying optimal strategies to improve representation in cancer clinical trials.
• Determining the role of technology, such as artificial intelligence, in improving cardiotoxicity disparities.

“Conscientiously leveraging technology and designing trials with outcomes related to these issues in practice (considering feasibility and cost) will critically accelerate the field of cardio-oncology in the 21st century. With tangible goals, we can improve health inequities in cardio-oncology,” the writing group said.

The research had no commercial funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

A “growing body of evidence” suggests that women and people from underrepresented patient groups experience disproportionately higher cardiovascular effects from new and emerging anticancer therapies, the writing group, led by Daniel Addison, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out.

For example, women appear to be at higher risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related toxicities, whereas Black patients with cancer face up to a threefold higher risk of cardiotoxicity with anticancer therapies.

With reduced screening and delayed preventive measures, Hispanic patients have more complex heart disease, cancer is diagnosed at later stages, and they receive more cardiotoxic regimens because of a lack of eligibility for novel treatments. Ultimately, this contributes to a higher incidence of treatment complications, cardiac dysfunction, and adverse patient outcomes for this patient group, they write.

Although no studies have specifically addressed cardio-oncology disparities in the LGBTQIA+ population, such disparities can be inferred from known cardiovascular disease and oncology disparities, the writing group noted.

These disparities are supported by “disparately high” risk of death after a cancer diagnosis among women and individuals from underrepresented groups, even after accounting for socioeconomic and behavioral patterns, they pointed out.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Evidence gaps and the path forward

“Despite advances in strategies to limit the risks of cardiovascular events among cancer survivors, relatively limited guidance is available to address the rapidly growing problem of disparate cardiotoxic risks among women and underrepresented patient populations,” the writing group said.

Decentralized and sporadic evaluations have led to a lack of consensus on the definitions, investigations, and potential optimal strategies to address disparate cardiotoxicity with contemporary cancer immunotherapy, as well as biologic and cytotoxic therapies, they noted.

They said caution is needed when interpreting clinical trial data about cardiotoxicity and in generalizing the results because people from diverse racial and ethnic groups have not been well represented in many trials.

The writing group outlined key evidence gaps and future research directions for addressing cardio-oncology disparities, as well as strategies to improve equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

These include the following:

• Identifying specific predictive factors of long-term cardiotoxic risk with targeted and immune-based cancer therapies in women and underrepresented populations.
• Investigating biological mechanisms that may underlie differences in cardiotoxicities between different patient groups.
• Developing personalized cardioprotection strategies that integrate biological, genetic, and social determinant markers.
• Intentionally diversifying clinical trials and identifying optimal strategies to improve representation in cancer clinical trials.
• Determining the role of technology, such as artificial intelligence, in improving cardiotoxicity disparities.

“Conscientiously leveraging technology and designing trials with outcomes related to these issues in practice (considering feasibility and cost) will critically accelerate the field of cardio-oncology in the 21st century. With tangible goals, we can improve health inequities in cardio-oncology,” the writing group said.

The research had no commercial funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association focuses on equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

A “growing body of evidence” suggests that women and people from underrepresented patient groups experience disproportionately higher cardiovascular effects from new and emerging anticancer therapies, the writing group, led by Daniel Addison, MD, with the Ohio State University, Columbus, pointed out.

For example, women appear to be at higher risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor–related toxicities, whereas Black patients with cancer face up to a threefold higher risk of cardiotoxicity with anticancer therapies.

With reduced screening and delayed preventive measures, Hispanic patients have more complex heart disease, cancer is diagnosed at later stages, and they receive more cardiotoxic regimens because of a lack of eligibility for novel treatments. Ultimately, this contributes to a higher incidence of treatment complications, cardiac dysfunction, and adverse patient outcomes for this patient group, they write.

Although no studies have specifically addressed cardio-oncology disparities in the LGBTQIA+ population, such disparities can be inferred from known cardiovascular disease and oncology disparities, the writing group noted.

These disparities are supported by “disparately high” risk of death after a cancer diagnosis among women and individuals from underrepresented groups, even after accounting for socioeconomic and behavioral patterns, they pointed out.

The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
 

Evidence gaps and the path forward

“Despite advances in strategies to limit the risks of cardiovascular events among cancer survivors, relatively limited guidance is available to address the rapidly growing problem of disparate cardiotoxic risks among women and underrepresented patient populations,” the writing group said.

Decentralized and sporadic evaluations have led to a lack of consensus on the definitions, investigations, and potential optimal strategies to address disparate cardiotoxicity with contemporary cancer immunotherapy, as well as biologic and cytotoxic therapies, they noted.

They said caution is needed when interpreting clinical trial data about cardiotoxicity and in generalizing the results because people from diverse racial and ethnic groups have not been well represented in many trials.

The writing group outlined key evidence gaps and future research directions for addressing cardio-oncology disparities, as well as strategies to improve equity in cardio-oncology care and research.

These include the following:

• Identifying specific predictive factors of long-term cardiotoxic risk with targeted and immune-based cancer therapies in women and underrepresented populations.
• Investigating biological mechanisms that may underlie differences in cardiotoxicities between different patient groups.
• Developing personalized cardioprotection strategies that integrate biological, genetic, and social determinant markers.
• Intentionally diversifying clinical trials and identifying optimal strategies to improve representation in cancer clinical trials.
• Determining the role of technology, such as artificial intelligence, in improving cardiotoxicity disparities.

“Conscientiously leveraging technology and designing trials with outcomes related to these issues in practice (considering feasibility and cost) will critically accelerate the field of cardio-oncology in the 21st century. With tangible goals, we can improve health inequities in cardio-oncology,” the writing group said.

The research had no commercial funding. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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