Cardiology

Some time ago I was invited to join a bipartisan congressional task force on valley fever, also known as coccidioidomycosis. A large and diverse crowd attended the task force’s first meeting in Bakersfield, Calif. – a meeting for everyone: the medical profession, the public, it even included veterinarians.

The whole thing was a resounding success. Francis Collins was there, the just-retired director of the NIH. Tom Frieden, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was there, as were several congresspeople and also my college roommate, a retired Navy medical corps captain. I was enjoying it.

Afterward, we had a banquet dinner at a restaurant in downtown Bakersfield. One of the people there was a woman I knew well – her husband was a physician friend. The restaurant served steak and salmon, and this woman made the mistake of ordering the steak.

Not long after the entrees were served, I heard a commotion at the table just behind me. I turned around and saw that woman in distress. A piece of steak had wedged in her trachea and she couldn’t breathe.

Almost immediately, the chef showed up. I don’t know how he got there. The chef at this restaurant was a big guy. I mean, probably 6 feet, 5 inches tall and 275 pounds. He tried the Heimlich maneuver. It didn’t work.

At that point, I jumped up. I thought, “Well, maybe I know how to do this better than him.” Probably not, actually. I tried and couldn’t make it work either. So I knew we were going to have to do something.

Paul Krogstad, my friend and research partner who is a pediatric infectious disease physician, stepped up and tried to put his finger in her throat and dig it out. He couldn’t get it. The patient had lost consciousness.

So, I’m thinking, okay, there’s really only one choice. You have to get an airway surgically.

I said, “We have to put her down on the floor.” And then I said, “Knife!”

I was looking at the steak knives on the table and they weren’t to my liking for doing a procedure. My college roommate – the retired Navy man – whipped out this very good pocketknife.

So, there we were, I had Paul Krogstad holding her head, and CDC Director Tom Frieden taking her pulse, which she still had. I took the knife and did a cricothyroidotomy. I had never done this in my life.

While I was making the incision, somebody gave Paul a ballpoint pen and he broke it into pieces to make a tracheostomy tube. Once I’d made the little incision, I put the tube in. She wasn’t breathing, but she still had a pulse.

I leaned forward and blew into the tube and inflated her lungs. I could see her lungs balloon up. It was a nice feeling, because I knew I was clearly in the right place.

I can’t quite explain it, but while I was doing this, I was enormously calm and totally focused. I knew there was a crowd of people around me, all looking at me, but I wasn’t conscious of that.

It was really just the four of us: Paul and Tom and me and our patient. Those were the only people that I was really cognizant of. Paul and Tom were not panic stricken at all. I remember somebody shouting, “We have to start CPR!” and Frieden said, “No. We don’t.”

Moments later, she woke up, sat up, coughed, and shot the piece of steak across the room.

She was breathing on her own, but we still taped that tube into place. Somebody had already summoned an ambulance; they were there not very long after we completed this procedure. I got in the ambulance with her and we rode over to the emergency room at Mercy Truxtun.

She was stable and doing okay. I sat with her until a thoracic surgeon showed up. He checked out the situation and decided we didn’t need that tube and took it out. I didn’t want to take that out until I had a surgeon there who could do a formal tracheostomy.

They kept her in the hospital for 3 or 4 days. Now, this woman had always had difficulties swallowing, so steak may not have been the best choice. She still had trouble swallowing afterward but recovered.

I’ve known her and her husband a long time, so it was certainly rewarding to be able to provide this service. Years later, though, when her husband died, I spoke at his funeral. When she was speaking to the gathering, she said, “And oh, by the way, Royce, thanks for saving my life.”

That surprised me. I didn’t think we were going to go there.

I’d never tried to practice medicine “at the roadside” before. But that’s part of the career.

Royce Johnson, MD, is the chief of the division of infectious disease among other leadership positions at Kern Medical in Bakersfield, Calif., and the medical director of the Valley Fever Institute.

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

Some time ago I was invited to join a bipartisan congressional task force on valley fever, also known as coccidioidomycosis. A large and diverse crowd attended the task force’s first meeting in Bakersfield, Calif. – a meeting for everyone: the medical profession, the public, it even included veterinarians.

The whole thing was a resounding success. Francis Collins was there, the just-retired director of the NIH. Tom Frieden, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was there, as were several congresspeople and also my college roommate, a retired Navy medical corps captain. I was enjoying it.

Afterward, we had a banquet dinner at a restaurant in downtown Bakersfield. One of the people there was a woman I knew well – her husband was a physician friend. The restaurant served steak and salmon, and this woman made the mistake of ordering the steak.

Not long after the entrees were served, I heard a commotion at the table just behind me. I turned around and saw that woman in distress. A piece of steak had wedged in her trachea and she couldn’t breathe.

Almost immediately, the chef showed up. I don’t know how he got there. The chef at this restaurant was a big guy. I mean, probably 6 feet, 5 inches tall and 275 pounds. He tried the Heimlich maneuver. It didn’t work.

At that point, I jumped up. I thought, “Well, maybe I know how to do this better than him.” Probably not, actually. I tried and couldn’t make it work either. So I knew we were going to have to do something.

Paul Krogstad, my friend and research partner who is a pediatric infectious disease physician, stepped up and tried to put his finger in her throat and dig it out. He couldn’t get it. The patient had lost consciousness.

So, I’m thinking, okay, there’s really only one choice. You have to get an airway surgically.

I said, “We have to put her down on the floor.” And then I said, “Knife!”

I was looking at the steak knives on the table and they weren’t to my liking for doing a procedure. My college roommate – the retired Navy man – whipped out this very good pocketknife.

So, there we were, I had Paul Krogstad holding her head, and CDC Director Tom Frieden taking her pulse, which she still had. I took the knife and did a cricothyroidotomy. I had never done this in my life.

While I was making the incision, somebody gave Paul a ballpoint pen and he broke it into pieces to make a tracheostomy tube. Once I’d made the little incision, I put the tube in. She wasn’t breathing, but she still had a pulse.

I leaned forward and blew into the tube and inflated her lungs. I could see her lungs balloon up. It was a nice feeling, because I knew I was clearly in the right place.

I can’t quite explain it, but while I was doing this, I was enormously calm and totally focused. I knew there was a crowd of people around me, all looking at me, but I wasn’t conscious of that.

It was really just the four of us: Paul and Tom and me and our patient. Those were the only people that I was really cognizant of. Paul and Tom were not panic stricken at all. I remember somebody shouting, “We have to start CPR!” and Frieden said, “No. We don’t.”

Moments later, she woke up, sat up, coughed, and shot the piece of steak across the room.

She was breathing on her own, but we still taped that tube into place. Somebody had already summoned an ambulance; they were there not very long after we completed this procedure. I got in the ambulance with her and we rode over to the emergency room at Mercy Truxtun.

She was stable and doing okay. I sat with her until a thoracic surgeon showed up. He checked out the situation and decided we didn’t need that tube and took it out. I didn’t want to take that out until I had a surgeon there who could do a formal tracheostomy.

They kept her in the hospital for 3 or 4 days. Now, this woman had always had difficulties swallowing, so steak may not have been the best choice. She still had trouble swallowing afterward but recovered.

I’ve known her and her husband a long time, so it was certainly rewarding to be able to provide this service. Years later, though, when her husband died, I spoke at his funeral. When she was speaking to the gathering, she said, “And oh, by the way, Royce, thanks for saving my life.”

That surprised me. I didn’t think we were going to go there.

I’d never tried to practice medicine “at the roadside” before. But that’s part of the career.

Royce Johnson, MD, is the chief of the division of infectious disease among other leadership positions at Kern Medical in Bakersfield, Calif., and the medical director of the Valley Fever Institute.

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

Some time ago I was invited to join a bipartisan congressional task force on valley fever, also known as coccidioidomycosis. A large and diverse crowd attended the task force’s first meeting in Bakersfield, Calif. – a meeting for everyone: the medical profession, the public, it even included veterinarians.

The whole thing was a resounding success. Francis Collins was there, the just-retired director of the NIH. Tom Frieden, then-director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was there, as were several congresspeople and also my college roommate, a retired Navy medical corps captain. I was enjoying it.

Afterward, we had a banquet dinner at a restaurant in downtown Bakersfield. One of the people there was a woman I knew well – her husband was a physician friend. The restaurant served steak and salmon, and this woman made the mistake of ordering the steak.

Not long after the entrees were served, I heard a commotion at the table just behind me. I turned around and saw that woman in distress. A piece of steak had wedged in her trachea and she couldn’t breathe.

Almost immediately, the chef showed up. I don’t know how he got there. The chef at this restaurant was a big guy. I mean, probably 6 feet, 5 inches tall and 275 pounds. He tried the Heimlich maneuver. It didn’t work.

At that point, I jumped up. I thought, “Well, maybe I know how to do this better than him.” Probably not, actually. I tried and couldn’t make it work either. So I knew we were going to have to do something.

Paul Krogstad, my friend and research partner who is a pediatric infectious disease physician, stepped up and tried to put his finger in her throat and dig it out. He couldn’t get it. The patient had lost consciousness.

So, I’m thinking, okay, there’s really only one choice. You have to get an airway surgically.

I said, “We have to put her down on the floor.” And then I said, “Knife!”

I was looking at the steak knives on the table and they weren’t to my liking for doing a procedure. My college roommate – the retired Navy man – whipped out this very good pocketknife.

So, there we were, I had Paul Krogstad holding her head, and CDC Director Tom Frieden taking her pulse, which she still had. I took the knife and did a cricothyroidotomy. I had never done this in my life.

While I was making the incision, somebody gave Paul a ballpoint pen and he broke it into pieces to make a tracheostomy tube. Once I’d made the little incision, I put the tube in. She wasn’t breathing, but she still had a pulse.

I leaned forward and blew into the tube and inflated her lungs. I could see her lungs balloon up. It was a nice feeling, because I knew I was clearly in the right place.

I can’t quite explain it, but while I was doing this, I was enormously calm and totally focused. I knew there was a crowd of people around me, all looking at me, but I wasn’t conscious of that.

It was really just the four of us: Paul and Tom and me and our patient. Those were the only people that I was really cognizant of. Paul and Tom were not panic stricken at all. I remember somebody shouting, “We have to start CPR!” and Frieden said, “No. We don’t.”

Moments later, she woke up, sat up, coughed, and shot the piece of steak across the room.

She was breathing on her own, but we still taped that tube into place. Somebody had already summoned an ambulance; they were there not very long after we completed this procedure. I got in the ambulance with her and we rode over to the emergency room at Mercy Truxtun.

She was stable and doing okay. I sat with her until a thoracic surgeon showed up. He checked out the situation and decided we didn’t need that tube and took it out. I didn’t want to take that out until I had a surgeon there who could do a formal tracheostomy.

They kept her in the hospital for 3 or 4 days. Now, this woman had always had difficulties swallowing, so steak may not have been the best choice. She still had trouble swallowing afterward but recovered.

I’ve known her and her husband a long time, so it was certainly rewarding to be able to provide this service. Years later, though, when her husband died, I spoke at his funeral. When she was speaking to the gathering, she said, “And oh, by the way, Royce, thanks for saving my life.”

That surprised me. I didn’t think we were going to go there.

I’d never tried to practice medicine “at the roadside” before. But that’s part of the career.

Royce Johnson, MD, is the chief of the division of infectious disease among other leadership positions at Kern Medical in Bakersfield, Calif., and the medical director of the Valley Fever Institute.

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

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A tool that incorporates lupus-related variables with traditional risk factors provides a much more accurate assessment of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), according to data presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Rheumatology Association.

In the initial clinical assessment of this tool, called the SLECRISK, “it identified high-risk lupus patients who would otherwise be missed by traditional methods of CV risk assessment,” reported May Y. Choi, MD, associate director of translational research at the University of Calgary’s (Alta.) Lupus Centre of Excellence.

bowdenimages/iStock/Getty Images

It is well known that patients with SLE face an increased risk of CV events starting at an age long before risk begins climbing in the general population, according to Dr. Choi. She cited one study that showed women aged 35-44 years have a 50-fold greater risk of myocardial infarction than healthy individuals.

All major guidelines recognize this increased risk and recommend CV risk assessment in patients with SLE, even though Dr. Choi pointed out that traditional tools, such as the American College of Cardiology atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator or the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) have a limited ability to detect the patients with SLE who are most likely to have an event.
 

In SLE, current tools are inadequate

“These risk assessment tools perform poorly in SLE patients because they do not capture SLE-related inflammation,” Dr. Choi said. Of several examples, Dr. Choi cited a study showing “seven times more MIs and strokes observed than expected in SLE patients on the basis of the FRS.”

The disparity between expected and observed MIs and strokes is worse with increasing severity of SLE. In a study she presented 3 years ago, rates of CV events were 12 times higher in those with inactive or mild SLE, rising to a 16-fold increase among those with moderate disease and jumping to a 32-fold increase in those with severe SLE.

The SLECRISK tool was developed from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital SLE Registry, which was initiated in 1992. Patients without a history of CV disease were evaluated for traditional CV risk factors and for SLE-specific characteristics such as disease activity, levels of the complement proteins C3 and C4, kidney function, the presence of nephritis, and SLE duration. The value of these characteristics as predictors of CV events were then assessed over a 10-year follow-up period before being assembled into the SLECRISK tool.

In an example of the risk equation, Dr. Choi described a 50-year-old patient with SLE and a 5% 10-year ASCVD risk score, which is low. After adjustment for SLE risks, which included 10 years disease duration, high disease activity, elevated creatinine, and positive anti–double stranded DNA status, the 10-year CV risk score climbed to 16.2%, which is moderate.

The performance of the SLECRISK was evaluated in 1,243 patients providing 8,946.51 person-years of follow-up. During this period, there were 90 major adverse cardiac events (MACE), of which 82% were adjudicated by cardiologists, and 211 secondary events.

Relative to the ASCVD risk score, the SLECRISK identified about twice as many patients with SLE as having moderate risk and 3.5-fold more patients as having high risk. Among patients who experienced CV events, traditional CV risk factors were more common but so were SLE-specific risk factors, including greater disease severity, a greater likelihood of lupus nephritis, increased complement levels, and greater exposure to glucocorticoids, according to Dr. Choi.

Specificities for CV events higher on SLECRISK

In predicting CV events, the differences in specificities were in the same general range, although somewhat higher for the ASCVD risk score in regard to predicting MACE (83% vs. 72%) and MACE plus secondary events (90% vs. 79%). However, the sensitivities were much higher for SLECRISK relative to the ASCVD risk score for MACE alone (64% vs. 41%) and for MACE plus secondary events (58% vs. 35%).

When comparing those who had an MI or stroke, the ASCVD risk score identified 8 (7%) patients missed by SLECRISK, whereas SLECRISK identified 89 (73%) missed by the ASCVD risk score. The remaining 25 patients (20%) were identified by both. The advantage of SLECRISK was similar for MACE plus secondary outcomes.

Dr. Choi noted that all of the SLE-specific variables in SLECRISK are readily obtained and often already available in patient charts. She said that there is a plan to validate the tool in larger groups, but with a goal of creating a tool available online for clinicians and their patients to use. There is also an even more ambitious plan for the future.

“We have funding to look at machine learning to evaluate predictive variables in SLE patients,” Dr. Choi said. Rather than adding SLE-specific variables to traditional risks, the plan is to “start from scratch,” letting artificial intelligence assemble predictors without prejudice to what might or might not be relevant.

A SLE-specific tool for evaluating CV risk is an important “unmet need,” according to Karen H. Costenbader, MD, professor in the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. In an interview, she reiterated that measuring CV risk in SLE is already guideline recommended, but conventional tools have been shown to be inaccurate.

“I can envision it being used in clinical encounters to help guide shared decision-making with patients,” explained Dr. Costenbader, who was not involved in the presentation at the CRA meeting but worked with Dr. Choi in developing SLECRISK. “It would give us more precise estimates, allowing us to risk stratify our patients and informing us as to which modifiable SLE-specific and nonspecific factors are contributing most to CV risk.’

The problem of using conventional risk assessments in SLE has been well recognized. Of those who have written on this subject, Maureen McMahon, MD, site director of the Lupus Clinical Trials Network at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: “There is a critical need for the development of SLE-specific risk assessment tools like SLECRISK.”

Author of several studies looking at alternatives for CV risk assessment in SLE, including a study looking at a panel of biomarkers that was published in ACR Open Rheumatology, Dr. McMahon said in an interview that CV risk in SLE is high but conventional risk assessments are flawed.

“Multiple previous studies have demonstrated that these currently available calculators are not adequate for identifying risk in the lupus patient population,” she said. According to Dr. McMahon, the fact that rheumatologists remain “dependent upon [these conventional] cardiovascular risk calculators” is a well-recognized problem that needs resolution.

Dr. Choi has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Mallinckrodt. MitogenDx, Organon, and Werfen International. Dr. Costenbader reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. McMahon has financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline.

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

The increased risk for diabetes following COVID-19 infection has persisted into the Omicron era, but vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 appears to diminish that likelihood, new data suggest.

The findings, from more than 20,000 patients in the Cedars-Sinai Health System in Los Angeles, suggest that “continued efforts to prevent COVID-19 infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the effects of potential long-term effects of COVID-19,” lead author Alan C. Kwan, MD, of the department of cardiology at Cedars Sinai’s Smidt Heart Institute, said in an interview.

Several studies conducted early in the pandemic suggested increased risks for both new-onset diabetes and cardiometabolic diseases following COVID-19 infection, possibly because of persistent inflammation contributing to insulin resistance.

However, it hasn’t been clear if those risks have persisted with the more recent predominance of the less-virulent Omicron variant or whether the COVID-19 vaccine influences the risk. This new study suggests that both are the case.

“Our results verify that the risk of developing type 2 diabetes after a COVID-19 infection was not just an early observation but, in fact, a real risk that has, unfortunately, persisted through the Omicron era,” Dr. Kwan noted.

“While the level of evidence by our study and others may not reach the degree needed to affect formal guidelines at this time, we believe it is reasonable to have increased clinical suspicion for diabetes after COVID-19 infection and a lower threshold for testing,” he added.

Moreover, “we believe that our study and others suggest the potential role of COVID-19 to affect cardiovascular risk, and so both prevention of COVID-19 infection, through reasonable personal practices and vaccination, and an increased attention to cardiovascular health after COVID-19 infection is warranted.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Kwan and colleagues analyzed data for a total of 23,709 patients treated (inpatient and outpatient) for at least one COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and June 2022.

Rates of new-onset diabetes (using ICD-10 codes, primarily type 2 diabetes), hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were all elevated in the 90 days following COVID-19 infection compared with the 90 days prior. The same was true of two diagnoses unrelated to COVID-19, urinary tract infection and gastroesophageal reflux, used as benchmarks of health care engagement.

The highest odds for post versus preinfection were for diabetes (odds ratio, 2.35; P < .001), followed by hypertension (OR, 1.54; P < .001), the benchmark diagnoses (OR, 1.42; P < .001), and hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.22; P = .03).

Following adjustments, the risk versus the benchmark conditions for new-onset diabetes before versus after COVID-19 was significantly elevated (OR, 1.58; P < .001), while the risks for hypertension and hyperlipidemia versus benchmark diagnoses were not (OR, 1.06; P = .52 and 0.91, P = .43, respectively).

The diabetes risk after versus before COVID-19 infection was higher among those who had not been vaccinated (OR, 1.78; P < .001), compared with those who had received the vaccine (OR, 1.07; P = .80).

However, there was no significant interaction between vaccination and diabetes diagnosis (P = .08). “For this reason, we believe our data are suggestive of a protective effect in the population who received vaccination prior to infection, but [this is] not definitive,” Dr. Kwan said.

There were no apparent interactions by age, sex, or pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension or hyperlipidemia. Age, sex, and timing of index infection regarding the Omicron variant were not associated with an increased risk of a new cardiometabolic diagnosis before or after COVID-19 infection in any of the models.

Dr. Kwan said in an interview: “We have continued to be surprised by the evolving understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the effects on human health. In the beginning of the pandemic it was framed as a purely respiratory virus, which we now know to be a severely limited description of all of its potential effects on the human body. We believe that our research and others raise a concern for increased cardiometabolic risk after COVID infection.”

He added that, “while knowledge is incomplete on this topic, we believe that clinical providers may wish to have a higher degree of suspicion for both diabetes and risk of future cardiac events in patients after COVID infection, and that continued efforts to prevent COVID infection may be beneficial to patient health until we develop better understanding of the potential long-term effects of COVID.”

This study was funded by the Erika J. Glazer Family Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, and grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kwan reported receiving grants from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

A new meta-analysis has added evidence questioning the utility and efficacy of prophylactic low-dose aspirin for preventing cardiovascular events in people who don’t have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), whether or not they’re also taking statins, and finds that at every level of ASCVD risk the aspirin carries a risk of major bleeding that exceeds its potentially protective benefits.

In a study published online in JACC: Advances, the researchers, led by Safi U. Khan, MD, MS, analyzed data from 16 trials with 171,215 individuals, with a median age of 64 years. Of the population analyzed, 35% were taking statins.

“This study focused on patients without ASCVD who are taking aspirin with or without statin therapy to prevent ASCVD events,” Dr. Khan, a cardiovascular disease fellow at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute, told this news organization. “We noted that the absolute risk of major bleeding in this patient population exceeds the absolute reduction in MI by aspirin across different ASCVD risk categories. Furthermore, concomitant statin therapy use further diminishes aspirin’s cardiovascular effects without influencing bleeding risk.”

Across the 16 studies, people taking aspirin had a relative risk reduction of 15% for MI vs. controls (RR .85; 95% confidence interval [CI], .77 to .95; P < .001). However, they had a 48% greater risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.66; P < .001).

The meta-analysis also found that aspirin, either as monotherapy or with a statin, carried a slight to significant benefit depending on the estimated risk of developing ASCVD. The risk of major bleeding exceeded the benefit across all three risk-stratified groups. The greatest benefit, and greatest risk, was in the groups with high to very-high ASCVD risk groups, defined as a 20%-30% and 30% or greater ASCVD risk, respectively: 20-37 fewer MIs per 10,000 with monotherapy and 27-49 fewer with statin, but 78-98 more major bleeding events with monotherapy and 74-95 more with statin.

And aspirin, either as monotherapy or with statin, didn’t reduce the risk of other key endpoints: stroke, all-cause mortality, or cardiovascular mortality. While aspirin was associated with a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR, .82; 95% CI, .72 to .94; P ≤. 001), it  wasn’t associated with reducing the risk of nonfatal stroke. Aspirin patients had a significantly 32% greater risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P ≤ .001) and 51% increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.72; P ≤ .001).

“We used randomized data from all key primary prevention of aspirin trials and estimated the absolute effects of aspirin therapy with or without concomitant statin across different baseline risks of the patients,” Dr. Khan said. “This approach allowed us to identify aspirin therapy’s risk-benefit equilibrium, which is tilted towards more harm than benefit.”

He acknowledged study limitations included using study-level rather than patient-level meta-analysis, and the inability to calculate effects in younger populations at high absolute risk.  

The investigators acknowledged the controversy surrounding aspirin use to prevent ASCVD, noting the three major guidelines: the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for aspirin only among asymptomatic individuals with high risk of ASCVD events, low bleeding risk, and age 70 years and younger; and the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, updated in 2022, recommending individualized low-dose aspirin only among adults ages 40-59 years with 10-year ASCVD risk of 10% or greater and a low bleeding risk.

The findings are not a clarion call to halt aspirin therapy, Dr. Khan said. “This research focuses only on patients who do not have ASCVD,” he said. “Patients who do have ASCVD should continue with aspirin and statin therapy. However, we noted that aspirin has a limited role for patients who do not have ASCVD beyond lifestyle modifications, smoking cessation, exercise, and preventive statin therapy. Therefore, they should only consider using aspirin if their physicians suggest that the risk of having a cardiovascular event exceeds their bleeding risk. Otherwise, they should discuss with their physicians about omitting aspirin.”

The study confirms the move away from low-dose aspirin to prevent ASCVD, said Tahmid Rahman, MD, cardiologist and associate director of the Center for Advanced Lipid Management at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Heart Institute. “The study really continues to add to essentially what we already know,” he said. “There was a big push that aspirin, initially before the major statin trials, was the way to go to prevent heart disease, but with later studies, and especially now with newer antiplatelet therapies and longer duration of medication for people with both secondary prevention and primary prevention, we are getting away from routine aspirin, especially in primary prevention.”

A new meta-analysis has added evidence questioning the utility and efficacy of prophylactic low-dose aspirin for preventing cardiovascular events in people who don’t have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), whether or not they’re also taking statins, and finds that at every level of ASCVD risk the aspirin carries a risk of major bleeding that exceeds its potentially protective benefits.

In a study published online in JACC: Advances, the researchers, led by Safi U. Khan, MD, MS, analyzed data from 16 trials with 171,215 individuals, with a median age of 64 years. Of the population analyzed, 35% were taking statins.

“This study focused on patients without ASCVD who are taking aspirin with or without statin therapy to prevent ASCVD events,” Dr. Khan, a cardiovascular disease fellow at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute, told this news organization. “We noted that the absolute risk of major bleeding in this patient population exceeds the absolute reduction in MI by aspirin across different ASCVD risk categories. Furthermore, concomitant statin therapy use further diminishes aspirin’s cardiovascular effects without influencing bleeding risk.”

Across the 16 studies, people taking aspirin had a relative risk reduction of 15% for MI vs. controls (RR .85; 95% confidence interval [CI], .77 to .95; P < .001). However, they had a 48% greater risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.66; P < .001).

The meta-analysis also found that aspirin, either as monotherapy or with a statin, carried a slight to significant benefit depending on the estimated risk of developing ASCVD. The risk of major bleeding exceeded the benefit across all three risk-stratified groups. The greatest benefit, and greatest risk, was in the groups with high to very-high ASCVD risk groups, defined as a 20%-30% and 30% or greater ASCVD risk, respectively: 20-37 fewer MIs per 10,000 with monotherapy and 27-49 fewer with statin, but 78-98 more major bleeding events with monotherapy and 74-95 more with statin.

And aspirin, either as monotherapy or with statin, didn’t reduce the risk of other key endpoints: stroke, all-cause mortality, or cardiovascular mortality. While aspirin was associated with a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR, .82; 95% CI, .72 to .94; P ≤. 001), it  wasn’t associated with reducing the risk of nonfatal stroke. Aspirin patients had a significantly 32% greater risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P ≤ .001) and 51% increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.72; P ≤ .001).

“We used randomized data from all key primary prevention of aspirin trials and estimated the absolute effects of aspirin therapy with or without concomitant statin across different baseline risks of the patients,” Dr. Khan said. “This approach allowed us to identify aspirin therapy’s risk-benefit equilibrium, which is tilted towards more harm than benefit.”

He acknowledged study limitations included using study-level rather than patient-level meta-analysis, and the inability to calculate effects in younger populations at high absolute risk.  

The investigators acknowledged the controversy surrounding aspirin use to prevent ASCVD, noting the three major guidelines: the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for aspirin only among asymptomatic individuals with high risk of ASCVD events, low bleeding risk, and age 70 years and younger; and the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, updated in 2022, recommending individualized low-dose aspirin only among adults ages 40-59 years with 10-year ASCVD risk of 10% or greater and a low bleeding risk.

The findings are not a clarion call to halt aspirin therapy, Dr. Khan said. “This research focuses only on patients who do not have ASCVD,” he said. “Patients who do have ASCVD should continue with aspirin and statin therapy. However, we noted that aspirin has a limited role for patients who do not have ASCVD beyond lifestyle modifications, smoking cessation, exercise, and preventive statin therapy. Therefore, they should only consider using aspirin if their physicians suggest that the risk of having a cardiovascular event exceeds their bleeding risk. Otherwise, they should discuss with their physicians about omitting aspirin.”

The study confirms the move away from low-dose aspirin to prevent ASCVD, said Tahmid Rahman, MD, cardiologist and associate director of the Center for Advanced Lipid Management at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Heart Institute. “The study really continues to add to essentially what we already know,” he said. “There was a big push that aspirin, initially before the major statin trials, was the way to go to prevent heart disease, but with later studies, and especially now with newer antiplatelet therapies and longer duration of medication for people with both secondary prevention and primary prevention, we are getting away from routine aspirin, especially in primary prevention.”

A new meta-analysis has added evidence questioning the utility and efficacy of prophylactic low-dose aspirin for preventing cardiovascular events in people who don’t have atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), whether or not they’re also taking statins, and finds that at every level of ASCVD risk the aspirin carries a risk of major bleeding that exceeds its potentially protective benefits.

In a study published online in JACC: Advances, the researchers, led by Safi U. Khan, MD, MS, analyzed data from 16 trials with 171,215 individuals, with a median age of 64 years. Of the population analyzed, 35% were taking statins.

“This study focused on patients without ASCVD who are taking aspirin with or without statin therapy to prevent ASCVD events,” Dr. Khan, a cardiovascular disease fellow at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Institute, told this news organization. “We noted that the absolute risk of major bleeding in this patient population exceeds the absolute reduction in MI by aspirin across different ASCVD risk categories. Furthermore, concomitant statin therapy use further diminishes aspirin’s cardiovascular effects without influencing bleeding risk.”

Across the 16 studies, people taking aspirin had a relative risk reduction of 15% for MI vs. controls (RR .85; 95% confidence interval [CI], .77 to .95; P < .001). However, they had a 48% greater risk of major bleeding (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.31-1.66; P < .001).

The meta-analysis also found that aspirin, either as monotherapy or with a statin, carried a slight to significant benefit depending on the estimated risk of developing ASCVD. The risk of major bleeding exceeded the benefit across all three risk-stratified groups. The greatest benefit, and greatest risk, was in the groups with high to very-high ASCVD risk groups, defined as a 20%-30% and 30% or greater ASCVD risk, respectively: 20-37 fewer MIs per 10,000 with monotherapy and 27-49 fewer with statin, but 78-98 more major bleeding events with monotherapy and 74-95 more with statin.

And aspirin, either as monotherapy or with statin, didn’t reduce the risk of other key endpoints: stroke, all-cause mortality, or cardiovascular mortality. While aspirin was associated with a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR, .82; 95% CI, .72 to .94; P ≤. 001), it  wasn’t associated with reducing the risk of nonfatal stroke. Aspirin patients had a significantly 32% greater risk of intracranial hemorrhage (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12-1.55; P ≤ .001) and 51% increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.72; P ≤ .001).

“We used randomized data from all key primary prevention of aspirin trials and estimated the absolute effects of aspirin therapy with or without concomitant statin across different baseline risks of the patients,” Dr. Khan said. “This approach allowed us to identify aspirin therapy’s risk-benefit equilibrium, which is tilted towards more harm than benefit.”

He acknowledged study limitations included using study-level rather than patient-level meta-analysis, and the inability to calculate effects in younger populations at high absolute risk.  

The investigators acknowledged the controversy surrounding aspirin use to prevent ASCVD, noting the three major guidelines: the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for aspirin only among asymptomatic individuals with high risk of ASCVD events, low bleeding risk, and age 70 years and younger; and the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, updated in 2022, recommending individualized low-dose aspirin only among adults ages 40-59 years with 10-year ASCVD risk of 10% or greater and a low bleeding risk.

The findings are not a clarion call to halt aspirin therapy, Dr. Khan said. “This research focuses only on patients who do not have ASCVD,” he said. “Patients who do have ASCVD should continue with aspirin and statin therapy. However, we noted that aspirin has a limited role for patients who do not have ASCVD beyond lifestyle modifications, smoking cessation, exercise, and preventive statin therapy. Therefore, they should only consider using aspirin if their physicians suggest that the risk of having a cardiovascular event exceeds their bleeding risk. Otherwise, they should discuss with their physicians about omitting aspirin.”

The study confirms the move away from low-dose aspirin to prevent ASCVD, said Tahmid Rahman, MD, cardiologist and associate director of the Center for Advanced Lipid Management at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Heart Institute. “The study really continues to add to essentially what we already know,” he said. “There was a big push that aspirin, initially before the major statin trials, was the way to go to prevent heart disease, but with later studies, and especially now with newer antiplatelet therapies and longer duration of medication for people with both secondary prevention and primary prevention, we are getting away from routine aspirin, especially in primary prevention.”

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high troponin levels are twice as likely to have cardiac abnormalities than those with normal troponin, with or without COVID-19, a multicenter U.K. study suggests.

The causes were diverse, myocarditis prevalence was lower than previously reported, and myocardial scar emerged as an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes at 12 months.

“We know that multiorgan involvement in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is common ... and may result in acute myocardial injury, detected by an increase in cardiac troponin concentrations,” John P. Greenwood, PhD, of the University of Leeds (England), told this news organization. “Elevated cardiac troponin is associated with a worse prognosis.”

“Multiple mechanisms of myocardial injury have been proposed and ... mitigation or prevention strategies likely depend on the underpinning mechanisms,” he said. “The sequelae of scar may predispose to late events.”

The study, published online  in Circulation, also identified a new pattern of microinfarction on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, highlighting the pro-thrombotic nature of SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Greenwood said.
 

Injury patterns different

Three hundred and forty-two patients with COVID-19 and elevated troponin levels (COVID+/troponin+) across 25 centers were enrolled between June 2020 and March 2021 in COVID-HEART, deemed an “urgent public health study” in the United Kingdom. The aim was to characterize myocardial injury and its associations and sequelae in convalescent patients after hospitalization with COVID-19.

Enrollment took place during the Wuhan and Alpha waves of COVID-19: before vaccination and when dexamethasone and anticoagulant protocols were emerging. All participants underwent CMR at a median of 21 days after discharge.

Two prospective control groups also were recruited: 64 patients with COVID-19 and normal troponin levels (COVID+/troponin−) and 113 without COVID-19 or elevated troponin matched by age and cardiovascular comorbidities (COVID−/comorbidity+).

Overall, participants’ median age was 61 years and 69% were men. Common comorbidities included hypertension (47%), obesity (43%), and diabetes (25%).

The frequency of any heart abnormality – for example, left or right ventricular impairment, scar, or pericardial disease – was twice as great (61%) in COVID+/troponin+ cases, compared with controls (36% for COVID+/troponin− patients versus 31% for COVID−/comorbidity+ patients).

Specifically, more cases than controls had ventricular impairment (17.2% vs. 3.1% and 7.1%) or scar (42% vs. 7% and 23%).

The myocardial injury pattern differed between cases and controls, with cases more likely to have infarction (13% vs. 2% and 7%) or microinfarction (9% vs. 0% and 1%).

However, there was no between-group difference in nonischemic scar (13% vs. 5% and 14%).

The prevalence of probable recent myocarditis was 6.7% in cases, compared with 1.7% in controls without COVID-19 – “much lower” than in previous studies, Dr. Greenwood noted.

During follow-up, four COVID+/troponin+ patients (1.2%) died, and 34 (10%) experienced a subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; 10.2%), which was similar to controls (6.1%).

Myocardial scar, but not previous COVID-19 infection or troponin level, was an independent predictor of MACE (odds ratio, 2.25).

“These findings suggest that macroangiopathic and microangiopathic thrombosis may be the key pathologic process for myocardial injury in COVID-19 survivors,” the authors conclude.

Dr. Greenwood added, “We are currently analyzing the 6-month follow-up CMR scans, the quality-of-life questionnaires, and the 6-minute walk tests. These will give us great understanding of how the heart repairs after acute myocardial injury associated with COVID-19. It will also allow us to assess the impact on patient quality of life and functional capacity.”
 

‘Tour de force’

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and a professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said, “This is a tour de force collaboration – obtaining this many MRIs across multiple centers in the pandemic is quite remarkable. The study highlights the multiple different processes that lead to cardiac injury in COVID patients, complements autopsy studies and prior smaller MRI studies, [and] also provides the best data on the rate of myocarditis to date among the subset of COVID patients with cardiac injury.”

Overall, he said, the findings “do support closer follow-up for patients who had COVID and elevated troponins. We need to see follow-up MRI results in this cohort, as well as longer term outcomes. We also need studies on newer, more benign variants that are likely to have lower rates of cardiac injury and even fewer MRI abnormalities.”

Matthias Stuber, PhD, and Aaron L. Baggish, MD, both of Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Switzerland, noted in a related editorial, “We are also reminded that the clinical severity of COVID-19 is most often dictated by the presence of pre-existing comorbidity, with antecedent ischemic scar now added to the long list of bad actors. Although not the primary focus of the COVID-HEART study, the question of whether cardiac troponin levels should be checked routinely and universally during the index admission for COVID-19 remains unresolved,” they noted.

“In general, we are most effective as clinicians when we use tests to confirm or rule out the specific disease processes suspected by careful basic clinical assessment rather than in a shotgun manner among undifferentiated all-comers,” they conclude.

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.

And while a strain that evokes memories of your first kiss is beyond the reach of modern cultivation practices, it is true that not all marijuana is created equal. It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.

The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.

And while a strain that evokes memories of your first kiss is beyond the reach of modern cultivation practices, it is true that not all marijuana is created equal. It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.

The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

I visited a legal cannabis dispensary in Massachusetts a few years ago, mostly to see what the hype was about. There I was, knowing basically nothing about pot, as the gentle stoner behind the counter explained to me the differences between the various strains. Acapulco Gold is buoyant and energizing; Purple Kush is sleepy, relaxed, dissociative. Here’s a strain that makes you feel nostalgic; here’s one that helps you focus. It was as complicated and as oddly specific as a fancy wine tasting – and, I had a feeling, about as reliable.

And while a strain that evokes memories of your first kiss is beyond the reach of modern cultivation practices, it is true that not all marijuana is created equal. It’s a plant, after all, and though delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the chemical responsible for its euphoric effects, it is far from the only substance in there.

The second most important compound in cannabis is cannabidiol, and most people will tell you that CBD is the gentle yin to THC’s paranoiac yang. Hence your local ganja barista reminding you that, if you don›t want all those anxiety-inducing side effects of THC, grab a strain with a nice CBD balance.

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

Courtesy JAMA Network Open

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale University’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator in New Haven, Conn.

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

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In May 2021, a nurse at UnitedHealthcare called a colleague to share some welcome news about a problem the two had been grappling with for weeks.

United provided the health insurance plan for students at Penn State University. It was a large and potentially lucrative account: lots of young, healthy students paying premiums in, not too many huge medical reimbursements going out.

But one student was costing United a lot of money. Christopher McNaughton suffered from a crippling case of ulcerative colitis – an ailment that caused him to develop severe arthritis, debilitating diarrhea, numbing fatigue, and life-threatening blood clots. His medical bills were running nearly $2 million a year.

United had flagged Mr. McNaughton’s case as a “high dollar account,” and the company was reviewing whether it needed to keep paying for the expensive cocktail of drugs crafted by a Mayo Clinic specialist that had brought Mr. McNaughton’s disease under control after he’d been through years of misery.

On the 2021 phone call, which was recorded by the company, nurse Victoria Kavanaugh told her colleague that a doctor contracted by United to review the case had concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was “not medically necessary.” Her colleague, Dave Opperman, reacted to the news with a long laugh.

“I knew that was coming,” said Mr. Opperman, who heads up a United subsidiary that brokered the health insurance contract between United and Penn State. “I did too,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied.

Mr. Opperman then complained about Mr. McNaughton’s mother, whom he referred to as “this woman,” for “screaming and yelling” and “throwing tantrums” during calls with United.

The pair agreed that any appeal of the United doctor’s denial of the treatment would be a waste of the family’s time and money.

“We’re still gonna say no,” Mr. Opperman said.

More than 200 million Americans are covered by private health insurance. But data from state and federal regulators shows that insurers reject about 1 in 7 claims for treatment. Many people, faced with fighting insurance companies, simply give up: One study found that Americans file formal appeals on only 0.1% of claims denied by insurers under the Affordable Care Act.

Insurers have wide discretion in crafting what is covered by their policies, beyond some basic services mandated by federal and state law. They often deny claims for services that they deem not “medically necessary.”

When United refused to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment for that reason, his family did something unusual. They fought back with a lawsuit, which uncovered a trove of materials, including internal emails and tape-recorded exchanges among company employees. Those records offer an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at how one of America’s leading health care insurers relentlessly fought to reduce spending on care, even as its profits rose to record levels.

As United reviewed Mr. McNaughton’s treatment, he and his family were often in the dark about what was happening or their rights. Meanwhile, United employees misrepresented critical findings and ignored warnings from doctors about the risks of altering Mr. McNaughton’s drug plan.

At one point, court records show, United inaccurately reported to Penn State and the family that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to lower the doses of his medication. Another time, a doctor paid by United concluded that denying payments for Mr. McNaughton’s treatment could put his health at risk, but the company buried his report and did not consider its findings. The insurer did, however, consider a report submitted by a company doctor who rubber-stamped the recommendation of a United nurse to reject paying for the treatment.

United declined to answer specific questions about the case, even after Mr. McNaughton signed a release provided by the insurer to allow it to discuss details of his interactions with the company. United noted that it ultimately paid for all of Mr. McNaughton’s treatments. In a written response, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo wrote that the company’s guiding concern was Mr. McNaughton’s well-being.

“Mr. McNaughton’s treatment involves medication dosages that far exceed [Food and Drug Administration] guidelines,” the statement said. “In cases like this, we review treatment plans based on current clinical guidelines to help ensure patient safety.”

But the records reviewed by ProPublica show that United had another, equally urgent goal in dealing with Mr. McNaughton. In emails, officials calculated what Mr. McNaughton was costing them to keep his crippling disease at bay and how much they would save if they forced him to undergo a cheaper treatment that had already failed him. As the family pressed the company to back down, first through Penn State and then through a lawsuit, the United officials handling the case bristled.

“This is just unbelievable,” Ms. Kavanaugh said of Mr. McNaughton’s family in one call to discuss his case. ”They’re just really pushing the envelope, and I’m surprised, like I don’t even know what to say.”
 

The same meal every day

Now 31, Mr. McNaughton grew up in State College, Pa., just blocks from the Penn State campus. Both of his parents are faculty members at the university.

In the winter of 2014, Mr. McNaughton was halfway through his junior year at Bard College in New York. At 6 feet, 4 inches tall, he was a guard on the basketball team and had started most of the team’s games since the start of his sophomore year. He was majoring in psychology.

When Mr. McNaughton returned to school after the winter holiday break, he started to experience frequent bouts of bloody diarrhea. After just a few days on campus, he went home to State College, where doctors diagnosed him with a severe case of ulcerative colitis.

A chronic inflammatory bowel disease that causes swelling and ulcers in the digestive tract, ulcerative colitis has no cure, and ongoing treatment is needed to alleviate symptoms and prevent serious health complications. The majority of cases produce mild to moderate symptoms. Mr. McNaughton’s case was severe.

Treatments for ulcerative colitis include steroids and special drugs known as biologics that work to reduce inflammation in the large intestine.

Mr. McNaughton, however, failed to get meaningful relief from the drugs his doctors initially prescribed. He was experiencing bloody diarrhea up to 20 times a day, with such severe stomach pain that he spent much of his day curled up on a couch. He had little appetite and lost 50 pounds. Severe anemia left him fatigued. He suffered from other conditions related to his colitis, including crippling arthritis. He was hospitalized several times to treat dangerous blood clots.

For 2 years, in an effort to help alleviate his symptoms, he ate the same meals every day: Rice Chex cereal and scrambled eggs for breakfast, a cup of white rice with plain chicken breast for lunch, and a similar meal for dinner, occasionally swapping in tilapia.

His hometown doctors referred him to a specialist at the University of Pittsburgh, who tried unsuccessfully to bring his disease under control. That doctor ended up referring Mr. McNaughton to Edward V. Loftus Jr., MD, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., which has been ranked as the best gastroenterology hospital in the country every year since 1990 by U.S. News & World Report.

For his first visit with Dr. Loftus in May 2015, Mr. McNaughton and his mother, Janice Light, charted hospitals along the 900-mile drive from Pennsylvania to Minnesota in case they needed medical help along the way.

Mornings were the hardest. Mr. McNaughton often spent several hours in the bathroom at the start of the day. To prepare for his meeting with Dr. Loftus, he set his alarm for 3:30 a.m. so he could be ready for the 7:30 a.m. appointment. Even with that preparation, he had to stop twice to use a bathroom on the 5-minute walk from the hotel to the clinic. When they met, Dr. Loftus looked at Mr. McNaughton and told him that he appeared incapacitated. It was, he told the student, as if Mr. McNaughton were chained to the bathroom, with no outside life. He had not been able to return to school and spent most days indoors, managing his symptoms as best he could.

Mr. McNaughton had tried a number of medications by this point, none of which worked. This pattern would repeat itself during the first couple of years that Dr. Loftus treated him.

In addition to trying to find a treatment that would bring Mr. McNaughton’s colitis into remission, Dr. Loftus wanted to wean him off the steroid prednisone, which he had been taking since his initial diagnosis in 2014. The drug is commonly prescribed to colitis patients to control inflammation, but prolonged use can lead to severe side effects including cataracts, osteoporosis, increased risk of infection, and fatigue. Mr. McNaughton also experienced “moon face,” a side effect caused by the shifting of fat deposits that results in the face becoming puffy and rounder.

In 2018, Dr. Loftus and Mr. McNaughton decided to try an unusual regimen. Many patients with inflammatory bowel diseases such as colitis take a single biologic drug as treatment. Whereas traditional drugs are chemically synthesized, biologics are manufactured in living systems, such as plant or animal cells. A year’s supply of an individual biologic drug can cost up to $500,000. They are often given through infusions in a medical facility, which adds to the cost.

Mr. McNaughton had tried individual biologics, and then two in combination, without much success. He and Dr. Loftus then agreed to try two biologic drugs together at doses well above those recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label uses.

There are drawbacks to the practice. Since some uses and doses of particular drugs have not been extensively studied, the risks and efficacy of using them off-label are not well known. Also, some drug manufacturers have improperly pushed off-label usage of their products to boost sales despite little or no evidence to support their use in those situations. Like many leading experts and researchers in his field, Dr. Loftus has been paid to do consulting related to the biologic drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton. The payments related to those drugs have ranged from a total of $1,440 in 2020 to $51,235 in 2018. Dr. Loftus said much of his work with pharmaceutical companies was related to conducting clinical trials on new drugs.

In cases of off-label prescribing, patients are depending upon their doctors’ expertise and experience with the drug. “In this case, I was comfortable that the potential benefits to Chris outweighed the risks,” Dr. Loftus said.

There was evidence that the treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton might work, including studies that had found dual biologic therapy to be efficacious and safe. The two drugs he takes, Entyvio and Remicade, have the same purpose – to reduce inflammation in the large intestine – but each works differently in the body. Remicade, marketed by Janssen Biotech, targets a protein that causes inflammation. Entyvio, made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, works by preventing an excess of white blood cells from entering into the gastrointestinal tract.

As for any suggestion by United doctors that his treatment plan for Mr. McNaughton was out of bounds or dangerous, Dr. Loftus said “my treatment of Chris was not clinically inappropriate – as was shown by Chris’ positive outcome.”

The unusual high-dose combination of two biologic drugs produced a remarkable change in Mr. McNaughton. He no longer had blood in his stool, and his trips to the bathroom were cut from 20 times a day to 3 or 4. He was able to eat different foods and put on weight. He had more energy. He tapered off prednisone.

“If you told me in 2015 that I would be living like this, I would have asked where do I sign up,” Mr. McNaughton said of the change he experienced with the new drug regimen.

When he first started the new treatment, Mr. McNaughton was covered under his family’s plan, and all his bills were paid. Mr. McNaughton enrolled at the university in 2020. Before switching to United’s plan for students, Mr. McNaughton and his parents consulted with a health advocacy service offered to faculty members. A benefits specialist assured them the drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton would be covered by United.

Mr. McNaughton joined the student plan in July 2020, and his infusions that month and the following month were paid for by United. In September, the insurer indicated payment on his claims was “pending,” something it did for his other claims that came in during the rest of the year.

Mr. McNaughton and his family were worried. They called United to make sure there wasn’t a problem; the insurer told them, they said, that it only needed to check his medical records. When the family called again, United told them it had the documentation needed, they said. United, in a court filing last year, said it received two calls from the family and each time indicated that all of the necessary medical records had not yet been received.

In January 2021, Mr. McNaughton received a new explanation of benefits for the prior months. All of the claims for his care, beginning in September, were no longer “pending.” They were stamped “DENIED.” The total outstanding bill for his treatment was $807,086.

When Mr. McNaughton’s mother reached a United customer service representative the next day to ask why bills that had been paid in the summer were being denied for the fall, the representative told her the account was being reviewed because of “a high dollar amount on the claims,” according to a recording of the call.


 

Misrepresentations

With United refusing to pay, the family was terrified of being stuck with medical bills that would bankrupt them and deprive Mr. McNaughton of treatment that they considered miraculous.

They turned to Penn State for help. Ms. Light and Mr. McNaughton’s father, David McNaughton, hoped their position as faculty members would make the school more willing to intervene on their behalf.

“After more than 30 years on faculty, my husband and I know that this is not how Penn State would want its students to be treated,” Ms. Light wrote to a school official in February 2021.

In response to questions from ProPublica, Penn State spokesperson Lisa Powers wrote that “supporting the health and well-being of our students is always of primary importance” and that “our hearts go out to any student and family impacted by a serious medical condition.” The university, she wrote, does “not comment on students’ individual circumstances or disclose information from their records.” Mr. McNaughton offered to grant Penn State whatever permissions it needed to speak about his case with ProPublica. The school, however, wrote that it would not comment “even if confidentiality has been waived.”

The family appealed to school administrators. Because the effectiveness of biologics wanes in some patients if doses are skipped, Mr. McNaughton and his parents were worried about even a delay in treatment. His doctor wrote that if he missed scheduled infusions of the drugs, there was “a high likelihood they would no longer be effective.”

During a conference call arranged by Penn State officials on March 5, 2021, United agreed to pay for Mr. McNaughton’s care through the end of the plan year that August. Penn State immediately notified the family of the “wonderful news” while also apologizing for “the stress this has caused Chris and your family.”

Behind the scenes, Mr. McNaughton’s review had “gone all the way to the top” at United’s student health plan division, Ms. Kavanaugh, the nurse, said in a recorded conversation.

The family’s relief was short-lived. A month later, United started another review of Mr. McNaughton’s care, overseen by Ms. Kavanaugh, to determine if it would pay for the treatment in the upcoming plan year.

The nurse sent the Mr. McNaughton case to a company called Medical Review Institute of America. Insurers often turn to companies like MRIoA to review coverage decisions involving expensive treatments or specialized care.

Ms. Kavanaugh, who was assigned to a special investigations unit at United, let her feelings about the matter be known in a recorded telephone call with a representative of MRIoA.

“This school apparently is a big client of ours,” she said. She then shared her opinion of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment. “Really this is a case of a kid who’s getting a drug way too much, like too much of a dose,” Ms. Kavanaugh said. She said it was “insane that they would even think that this is reasonable” and “to be honest with you, they’re awfully pushy considering that we are paying through the end of this school year.”

On a call with an outside contractor, the United nurse claimed Mr. McNaughton was on a higher dose of medication than the FDA approved, which is a common practice.

MRIoA sent the case to Vikas Pabby, MD, a gastroenterologist at UCLA Health and a professor at the university’s medical school. His May 2021 review of Mr. McNaughton’s case was just one of more than 300 Dr. Pabby did for MRIoA that month, for which he was paid $23,000 in total, according to a log of his work produced in the lawsuit.

In a May 4, 2021, report, Dr. Pabby concluded Mr. McNaughton’s treatment was not medically necessary, because United’s policies for the two drugs taken by Mr. McNaughton did not support using them in combination.

Insurers spell out what services they cover in plan policies, lengthy documents that can be confusing and difficult to understand. Many policies, such as Mr. McNaughton’s, contain a provision that treatments and procedures must be “medically necessary” in order to be covered. The definition of medically necessary differs by plan. Some don’t even define the term. Mr. McNaughton’s policy contains a five-part definition, including that the treatment must be “in accordance with the standards of good medical policy” and “the most appropriate supply or level of service which can be safely provided.”

Behind the scenes at United, Mr. Opperman and Ms. Kavanaugh agreed that if Mr. McNaughton were to appeal Dr. Pabby’s decision, the insurer would simply rule against him. “I just think it’s a waste of money and time to appeal and send it to another one when we know we’re gonna get the same answer,” Mr. Opperman said, according to a recording in court files. At Mr. Opperman’s urging, United decided to skip the usual appeals process and arrange for Dr. Pabby to have a so-called “peer-to-peer” discussion with Dr. Loftus, the Mayo physician treating Mr. McNaughton. Such a conversation, in which a patient’s doctor talks with an insurance company’s doctor to advocate for the prescribed treatment, usually occurs only after a customer has appealed a denial and the appeal has been rejected.

When Ms. Kavanaugh called Dr. Loftus’ office to set up a conversation with Dr. Pabby, she explained it was an urgent matter and had been requested by Mr. McNaughton. “You know I’ve just gotten to know Christopher,” she explained, although she had never spoken with him. “We’re trying to advocate and help and get this peer-to-peer set up.”

Mr. McNaughton, meanwhile, had no idea at the time that a United doctor had decided his treatment was unnecessary and that the insurer was trying to set up a phone call with his physician.

In the peer-to-peer conversation, Dr. Loftus told Dr. Pabby that Mr. McNaughton had “a very complicated case” and that lower doses had not worked for him, according to an internal MRIoA memo.

Following his conversation with Dr. Loftus, Dr. Pabby created a second report for United. He recommended the insurer pay for both drugs, but at reduced doses. He added new language saying that the safety of using both drugs at the higher levels “is not established.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh shared the May 12 decision from Dr. Pabby with others at United, her boss responded with an email calling it “great news.”

Then Mr. Opperman sent an email that puzzled the McNaughtons.

In it, Mr. Opperman claimed that Dr. Loftus and Dr. Pabby had agreed that Mr. McNaughton should be on significantly lower doses of both drugs. He said Dr. Loftus “will work with the patient to start titrating them down to a normal dose range.” Mr. Opperman wrote that United would cover Mr. McNaughton’s treatment in the coming year, but only at the reduced doses. Mr. Opperman did not respond to emails and phone messages seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton didn’t believe a word of it. He had already tried and failed treatment with those drugs at lower doses, and it was Dr. Loftus who had upped the doses, leading to his remission from severe colitis.

The only thing that made sense to Mr. McNaughton was that the treatment United said it would now pay for was dramatically cheaper – saving the company at least hundreds of thousands of dollars a year – than his prescribed treatment because it sliced the size of the doses by more than half.

When the family contacted Dr. Loftus for an explanation, they were outraged by what they heard. Dr. Loftus told them that he had never recommended lowering the dosage. In a letter, Dr. Loftus wrote that changing Mr. McNaughton’s treatment “would have serious detrimental effects on both his short term and long term health and could potentially involve life threatening complications. This would ultimately incur far greater medical costs. Chris was on the doses suggested by United Healthcare before, and they were not at all effective.”

It would not be until the lawsuit that it would become clear how Dr. Loftus’ conversations had been so seriously misrepresented.

Under questioning by Mr. McNaughton’s lawyers, Ms. Kavanaugh acknowledged that she was the source of the incorrect claim that Mr. McNaughton’s doctor had agreed to a change in treatment.

“I incorrectly made an assumption that they had come to some sort of agreement,” she said in a deposition last August. “It was my first peer-to-peer. I did not realize that that simply does not occur.”

Ms. Kavanaugh did not respond to emails and telephone messages seeking comment.

When the McNaughtons first learned of Mr. Opperman’s inaccurate report of the phone call with Dr. Loftus, it unnerved them. They started to question if their case would be fairly reviewed.

“When we got the denial and they lied about what Dr. Loftus said, it just hit me that none of this matters,” Mr. McNaughton said. “They will just say or do anything to get rid of me. It delegitimized the entire review process. When I got that denial, I was crushed.”


 

A buried report

While the family tried to sort out the inaccurate report, United continued putting the McNaughton case in front of more company doctors.

On May 21, 2021, United sent the case to one of its own doctors, Nady Cates, MD, for an additional review. The review was marked “escalated issue.” Dr. Cates is a United medical director, a title used by many insurers for physicians who review cases. It is work he has been doing as an employee of health insurers since 1989 and at United since 2010. He has not practiced medicine since the early 1990s.

Dr. Cates, in a deposition, said he stopped seeing patients because of the long hours involved and because “AIDS was coming around then. I was seeing a lot of military folks who had venereal diseases, and I guess I was concerned about being exposed.” He transitioned to reviewing paperwork for the insurance industry, he said, because “I guess I was a chicken.”

When he had practiced, Dr. Cates said, he hadn’t treated patients with ulcerative colitis and had referred those cases to a gastroenterologist.

He said his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case primarily involved reading a United nurse’s recommendation to deny his care and making sure “that there wasn’t a decimal place that was out of line.” He said he copied and pasted the nurse’s recommendation and typed “agree” on his review of Mr. McNaughton’s case.

Dr. Cates said that he does about a hundred reviews a week. He said that in his reviews he typically checks to see if any medications are prescribed in accordance with the insurer’s guidelines, and if not, he denies it. United’s policies, he said, prevented him from considering that Mr. McNaughton had failed other treatments or that Dr. Loftus was a leading expert in his field.

“You are giving zero weight to the treating doctor’s opinion on the necessity of the treatment regimen?” a lawyer asked Dr. Cates in his deposition. He responded, “Yeah.”

Attempts to contact Dr. Cates for comment were unsuccessful.

At the same time Dr. Cates was looking at Mr. McNaughton’s case, yet another review was underway at MRIoA. United said it sent the case back to MRIoA after the insurer received the letter from Dr. Loftus warning of the life-threatening complications that might occur if the dosages were reduced.

On May 24, 2021, the new report requested by MRIoA arrived. It came to a completely different conclusion than all of the previous reviews.

Nitin Kumar, MD, a gastroenterologist in Illinois, concluded that Mr. McNaughton’s established treatment plan was not only medically necessary and appropriate but that lowering his doses “can result in a lack of effective therapy of Ulcerative Colitis, with complications of uncontrolled disease (including dysplasia leading to colorectal cancer), flare, hospitalization, need for surgery, and toxic megacolon.”

Unlike other doctors who produced reports for United, Dr. Kumar discussed the harm that Mr. McNaughton might suffer if United required him to change his treatment. “His disease is significantly severe, with diagnosis at a young age,” Dr. Kumar wrote. “He has failed every biologic medication class recommended by guidelines. Therefore, guidelines can no longer be applied in this case.” He cited six studies of patients using two biologic drugs together and wrote that they revealed no significant safety issues and found the therapy to be “broadly successful.”

When Ms. Kavanaugh learned of Dr. Kumar’s report, she quickly moved to quash it and get the case returned to Dr. Pabby, according to her deposition.

In a recorded telephone call, Ms. Kavanaugh told an MRIoA representative that “I had asked that this go back through Dr. Pabby, and it went through a different doctor and they had a much different result.” After further discussion, the MRIoA representative agreed to send the case back to Dr. Pabby. “I appreciate that,” Ms. Kavanaugh replied. “I just want to make sure, because, I mean, it’s obviously a very different result than what we’ve been getting on this case.”

MRIoA case notes show that at 7:04 a.m. on May 25, 2021, Dr. Pabby was assigned to take a look at the case for the third time. At 7:27 a.m., the notes indicate, Dr. Pabby again rejected Mr. McNaughton’s treatment plan. While noting it was “difficult to control” Mr. McNaughton’s ulcerative colitis, Dr. Pabby added that his doses “far exceed what is approved by literature” and that the “safety of the requested doses is not supported by literature.”

In a deposition, Ms. Kavanaugh said that after she opened the Kumar report and read that he was supporting Mr. McNaughton’s current treatment plan, she immediately spoke to her supervisor, who told her to call MRIoA and have the case sent back to Dr. Pabby for review.

Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t save a copy of the Kumar report, nor did she forward it to anyone at United or to officials at Penn State who had been inquiring about the McNaughton case. “I didn’t because it shouldn’t have existed,” she said. “It should have gone back to Dr. Pabby.”

When asked if the Kumar report caused her any concerns given his warning that Mr. McNaughton risked cancer or hospitalization if his regimen were changed, Ms. Kavanaugh said she didn’t read his full report. “I saw that it was not the correct doctor, I saw the initial outcome and I was asked to send it back,” she said. Ms. Kavanaugh added, “I have a lot of empathy for this member, but it needed to go back to the peer-to-peer reviewer.”

In a court filing, United said Ms. Kavanaugh was correct in insisting that Dr. Pabby conduct the review and that MRIoA confirmed that Dr. Pabby should have been the one doing the review.

The Kumar report was not provided to Mr. McNaughton when his lawyer, Jonathan M. Gesk, first asked United and MRIoA for any reviews of the case. Mr. Gesk discovered it by accident when he was listening to a recorded telephone call produced by United in which Ms. Kavanaugh mentioned a report number Mr. Gesk had not heard before. He then called MRIoA, which confirmed the report existed and eventually provided it to him.

Dr. Pabby asked ProPublica to direct any questions about his involvement in the matter to MRIoA. The company did not respond to questions from ProPublica about the case.
 

A sense of hopelessness

When Mr. McNaughton enrolled at Penn State in 2020, it brought a sense of normalcy that he had lost when he was first diagnosed with colitis. He still needed monthly hours-long infusions and suffered occasional flare-ups and symptoms, but he was attending classes in person and living a life similar to the one he had before his diagnosis.

It was a striking contrast to the previous 6 years, which he had spent largely confined to his parents’ house in State College. The frequent bouts of diarrhea made it difficult to go out. He didn’t talk much to friends and spent as much time as he could studying potential treatments and reviewing ongoing clinical trials. He tried to keep up with the occasional online course, but his disease made it difficult to make any real progress toward a degree.

United, in correspondence with Mr. McNaughton, noted that its review of his care was “not a treatment decision. Treatment decisions are made between you and your physician.” But by threatening not to pay for his medications, or only to pay for a different regimen, Mr. McNaughton said, United was in fact attempting to dictate his treatment. From his perspective, the insurer was playing doctor, making decisions without ever examining him or even speaking to him.

The idea of changing his treatment or stopping it altogether caused constant worry for Mr. McNaughton, exacerbating his colitis and triggering physical symptoms, according to his doctors. Those included a large ulcer on his leg and welts under his skin on his thighs and shin that made his leg muscles stiff and painful to the point where he couldn’t bend his leg or walk properly. There were daily migraines and severe stomach pain. “I was consumed with this situation,” Mr. McNaughton said. “My path was unconventional, but I was proud of myself for fighting back and finishing school and getting my life back on track. I thought they were singling me out. My biggest fear was going back to the hell.”

Mr. McNaughton said he contemplated suicide on several occasions, dreading a return to a life where he was housebound or hospitalized.

Mr. McNaughton and his parents talked about his possibly moving to Canada where his grandmother lived and seeking treatment there under the nation’s government health plan.

Dr. Loftus connected Mr. McNaughton with a psychologist who specializes in helping patients with chronic digestive diseases.

The psychologist, Tiffany Taft, PsyD, said Mr. McNaughton was not an unusual case. About one in three patients with diseases like colitis suffer from medical trauma or PTSD related to it, she said, often the result of issues related to getting appropriate treatment approved by insurers.

“You get into hopelessness,” she said of the depression that accompanies fighting with insurance companies over care. “They feel like ‘I can’t fix that. I am screwed.’ When you can’t control things with what an insurance company is doing, anxiety, PTSD and depression get mixed together.”

In the case of Mr. McNaughton, Dr. Taft said, he was being treated by one of the best gastroenterologists in the world, was doing well with his treatment, and then was suddenly notified he might be on the hook for nearly a million dollars in medical charges without access to his medications. “It sends you immediately into panic about all these horrific things that could happen,” Dr. Taft said. The physical and mental symptoms Mr. McNaughton suffered after his care was threatened were “triggered” by the stress he experienced, she said.

In early June 2021, United informed Mr. McNaughton in a letter that it would not cover the cost of his treatment regimen in the next academic year, starting in August. The insurer said it would pay only for a treatment plan that called for a significant reduction in the doses of the drugs he took.

United wrote that the decision came after his “records have been reviewed three times and the medical reviewers have concluded that the medication as prescribed does not meet the Medical Necessity requirement of the plan.”

In August 2021, Mr. McNaughton filed a federal lawsuit accusing United of acting in bad faith and unreasonably making treatment decisions based on financial concerns and not what was the best and most effective treatment. It claims United had a duty to find information that supported Mr. McNaughton’s claim for treatment rather than looking for ways to deny coverage.

United, in a court filing, said it did not breach any duty it owed to Mr. McNaughton and acted in good faith. On Sept. 20, 2021, a month after filing the lawsuit, and with United again balking at paying for his treatment, Mr. McNaughton asked a judge to grant a temporary restraining order requiring United to pay for his care. With the looming threat of a court hearing on the motion, United quickly agreed to cover the cost of Mr. McNaughton’s treatment through the end of the 2021-2022 academic year. It also dropped a demand requiring Mr. McNaughton to settle the matter as a condition of the insurer paying for his treatment as prescribed by Dr. Loftus, according to an email sent by United’s lawyer.
 

The cost of treatment

It is not surprising that insurers are carefully scrutinizing the care of patients treated with biologics, which are among the most expensive medications on the market. Biologics are considered specialty drugs, a class that includes the best-selling Humira, used to treat arthritis. Specialty drug spending in the United States is expected to reach $505 billion in 2023, according to an estimate from Optum, United’s health services division. The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that analyzes the value of drugs, found in 2020 that the biologic drugs used to treat patients like Mr. McNaughton are often effective but overpriced for their therapeutic benefit. To be judged cost-effective by ICER, the biologics should sell at a steep discount to their current market price, the panel found.

A panel convened by ICER to review its analysis cautioned that insurance coverage “should be structured to prevent situations in which patients are forced to choose a treatment approach on the basis of cost.” ICER also found examples where insurance company policies failed to keep pace with updates to clinical practice guidelines based on emerging research.

United officials did not make the cost of treatment an issue when discussing Mr. McNaughton’s care with Penn State administrators or the family.

Bill Truxal, the president of UnitedHealthcare StudentResources, the company’s student health plan division, told a Penn State official that the insurer wanted the “best for the student” and it had “nothing to do with cost,” according to notes the official took of the conversation.

Behind the scenes, however, the price of Mr. McNaughton’s care was front and center at United.

In one email, Mr. Opperman asked about the cost difference if the insurer insisted on paying only for greatly reduced doses of the biologic drugs. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that the insurer had paid $1.1 million in claims for Mr. McNaughton’s care as of the middle of May 2021. If the reduced doses had been in place, the amount would have been cut to $260,218, she wrote.

United was keeping close tabs on Mr. McNaughton at the highest levels of the company. On Aug. 2, 2021, Mr. Opperman notified Mr. Truxal and a United lawyer that Mr. McNaughton “has just purchased the plan again for the 21-22 school year.”

A month later, Ms. Kavanaugh shared another calculation with United executives showing that the insurer spent over $1.7 million on Mr. McNaughton in the prior plan year.

United officials strategized about how to best explain why it was reviewing Mr. McNaughton’s drug regimen, according to an internal email. They pointed to a justification often used by health insurers when denying claims. “As the cost of healthcare continues to climb to soaring heights, it has been determined that a judicious review of these drugs should be included” in order to “make healthcare more affordable for our members,” Ms. Kavanaugh offered as a potential talking point in an April 23, 2021, email.

Three days later, UnitedHealth Group filed an annual statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing its pay for top executives in the prior year. Then-CEO David Wichmann was paid $17.9 million in salary and other compensation in 2020. Wichmann retired early the following year, and his total compensation that year exceeded $140 million, according to calculations in a compensation database maintained by the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. The newspaper said the amount was the most paid to an executive in the state since it started tracking pay more than 2 decades ago. About $110 million of that total came from Wichmann exercising stock options accumulated during his stewardship.

The McNaughtons were well aware of the financial situation at United. They looked at publicly available financial results and annual reports. Last year, United reported a profit of $20.1 billion on revenues of $324.2 billion.

When discussing the case with Penn State, Ms. Light said, she told university administrators that United could pay for a year of her son’s treatment using just minutes’ worth of profit.
 

‘Betrayed’

Mr. McNaughton has been able to continue receiving his infusions for now, anyway. In October, United notified him it was once again reviewing his care, although the insurer quickly reversed course when his lawyer intervened. United, in a court filing, said the review was a mistake and that it had erred in putting Mr. McNaughton’s claims into pending status.

Mr. McNaughton said he is fortunate his parents were employed at the same school he was attending, which was critical in getting the attention of administrators there. But that help had its limits.

In June 2021, just a week after United told Mr. McNaughton it would not cover his treatment plan in the upcoming plan year, Penn State essentially walked away from the matter.

In an email to the McNaughtons and United, Penn State Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Andrea Dowhower wrote that administrators “have observed an unfortunate breakdown in communication” between Mr. McNaughton and his family and the university health insurance plan, “which appears from our perspective to have resulted in a standstill between the two parties.” While she proposed some potential steps to help settle the matter, she wrote that “Penn State’s role in this process is as a resource for students like Chris who, for whatever reason, have experienced difficulty navigating the complex world of health insurance.” The university’s role “is limited,” she wrote, and the school “simply must leave” the issue of the best treatment for Mr. McNaughton to “the appropriate health care professionals.”

In a statement, a Penn State spokesperson wrote that “as a third party in this arrangement, the University’s role is limited and Penn State officials can only help a student manage an issue based on information that a student/family, medical personnel, and/or insurance provider give – with the hope that all information is accurate and that the lines of communication remain open between the insured and the insurer.”

Penn State declined to provide financial information about the plan. However, the university and United share at least one tie that they have not publicly disclosed.

When the McNaughtons first reached out to the university for help, they were referred to the school’s student health insurance coordinator. The official, Heather Klinger, wrote in an email to the family in February 2021 that “I appreciate your trusting me to resolve this for you.”

In April 2022, United began paying Ms. Klinger’s salary, an arrangement which is not noted on the university website. Ms. Klinger appears in the online staff directory on the Penn State University Health Services web page, and has a university phone number, a university address, and a Penn State email listed as her contact. The school said she has maintained a part-time status with the university to allow her to access relevant data systems at both the university and United.

The university said students “benefit” from having a United employee to handle questions about insurance coverage and that the arrangement is “not uncommon” for student health plans.

The family was dismayed to learn that Ms. Klinger was now a full-time employee of United.

“We did feel betrayed,” Ms. Light said. Ms. Klinger did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Mr. McNaughton’s fight to maintain his treatment regimen has come at a cost of time, debilitating stress, and depression. “My biggest fear is realizing I might have to do this every year of my life,” he said.

Mr. McNaughton said one motivation for his lawsuit was to expose how insurers like United make decisions about what care they will pay for and what they will not. The case remains pending, a court docket shows.

He has been accepted to Penn State’s law school. He hopes to become a health care lawyer working for patients who find themselves in situations similar to his.

He plans to re-enroll in the United health care plan when he starts school next fall.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive the biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.

The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.

“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.

“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.

Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.

“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.

“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.

Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.

“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
 

Changing practice

ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.

“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”

Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”

In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.

“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.

He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.

“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.

The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.

Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.

Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.

By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).

“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.

“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”

The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.

“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
 

Is this clinically relevant AFib?

Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.

He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.

“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”

He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”

Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.

“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”

He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”

When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.

“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
 

Shared decision-making

Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.

“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”

He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.

“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”

He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”

In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”

Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.

But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.

“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”

The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.

The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.

“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.

“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.

Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.

“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.

“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.

Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.

“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
 

Changing practice

ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.

“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”

Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”

In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.

“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.

He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.

“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.

The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.

Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.

Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.

By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).

“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.

“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”

The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.

“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
 

Is this clinically relevant AFib?

Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.

He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.

“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”

He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”

Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.

“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”

He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”

When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.

“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
 

Shared decision-making

Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.

“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”

He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.

“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”

He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”

In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”

Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.

But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.

“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”

The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

In the STROKE AF study, among patients who had a stroke presumably caused by atherosclerosis, the rate of atrial fibrillation (AFib) was almost 22% at 3 years, as detected by continuous monitoring.

The 3-year results from the study were presented by Lee H. Schwamm, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Schwamm said the high rate of AFib detection in this study suggests that continuous monitoring for AFib should be considered for a larger population of stroke patients, rather than just those with cryptogenic stroke.

“We found a much higher rate of AF[ib] than we expected in this population of patients who have had an atherosclerotic stroke,” Dr. Schwamm said in an interview.

“These AF[ib] occurrences were found by a device, so they are known as ‘device-documented AF[ib].’ The patient is not generally aware of symptoms, but 67% of the AF[ib] episodes lasted for more than 1 hour, showing that this is not trivial AF[ib]. This is meaningful AF[ib],” he said.

Dr. Schwamm said the major question is whether these cases of AFib that are detected with a device warrant treatment with anticoagulation. He noted that, in this study, clinicians decided to provide anticoagulation to 70%-80% of patients in whom AFib was detected.

“If we think it deserves treatment, then we have to look for it. And if we care about finding AF[ib], we have no choice but to monitor continuously,” he said.

“If this data doesn’t convince you that AF[ib] is present in this population, I don’t think any data will. Because it is consistent, it accumulates over time and looks remarkably similar to a set of data that we have all become very comfortable with – the CRYSTAL-AF study in patients with cryptogenic stroke,” he stated.

Dr. Schwamm noted that the STROKE AF trial was not based on the cause of the index stroke; rather, it was asking whether there are risk factors that could contribute to the 25% stroke recurrence rate in this population that are not covered in current guidelines.

“I’m really trying to move away from the anchor that I was trained in, which is to figure out the cause of the last stroke to help decide how to prevent the next stroke, towards more of a probabilistic model – of what is all the information I have at my disposal and how do I act on it to prevent the next stroke? We have to start thinking differently about building models for future stroke risk and determining therapy based on that,” he commented.
 

Changing practice

ISC 2023 program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and moderator of the session at which the results were presented, discussed the STROKE AF results in a highlights presentation.

“To me as clinician, these results are even more relevant than those at 12 months,” Dr. Jovin said. “The lesson I took is that AF[ib] is even more prevalent than we thought. The burden of AF[ib] is significant in these patients, and it doesn’t seem to be limited to a particular time. These are very thought-provoking results which are going to change clinical practice. I think the threshold for long-term monitoring will be lower.”

Comoderator Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., added: “This study shows that the longer we monitor, the more patients with AF[ib] we are likely to pick up. And because in two-thirds of patients with AF[ib], it lasted longer than 1 hour, I do believe this was clinically relevant AF[ib]. The question now is, do we monitor everyone? I think it puts the burden on us to search for AF[ib] in our patients.”

In his presentation, Dr. Schwamm explained that, on the basis of the CRYSTAL-AF study, insertable cardiac monitoring devices are frequently used to identify poststroke AFib in patients with cryptogenic stroke. In the device-monitored arm of that study, AFib was detected in 12.4% of patients over 12 months versus 2.0% in the control arm.

“However, we don’t know how often AF[ib] is detected in other presumed stroke types – largely those due to atherosclerosis,” he said.

He pointed out that, at present, long-term monitoring post stroke for the detection of AFib is not currently recommended for patients with ischemic stroke, owing to presumed small-vessel occlusion or large-artery atherosclerosis.

“In these patients, we are not suspecting AF[ib] because we believe the cause of the stroke was not embolic. But we wanted to investigate what the AF[ib] risk is in these patients, who often have multiple stroke risk factors,” he said.

The trial enrolled 496 patients at 33 centers in the United States. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older or aged 50-59 years with at least one additional stroke risk factor and had an index stroke that was attributed to large-artery or small-vessel disease. Patients were randomly assigned either to continuous monitoring with the Reveal LINQ device (Medtronic) or to the control arm following site-specific standard of care for AFib detection.

Dr. Schwamm noted that usual care for these patients normally involves monitoring for just a few days while in hospital, but this picks up less than 5% of AFib occurrences.

Baseline characteristics of patients in the STROKE AF study showed that the enrolled population was at high risk for stroke, with a CHADSVASC score of 5. But the index strokes were generally small; the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 2.

Results at 12 months, reported 2 years ago, showed a 12.5% incidence of AFib with continuous monitoring versus 1.8% with standard of care (hazard ratio, 7.7; P < .001), rates similar to that found in the CRYSTAL-AF study.

By 3 years, the rate of detected AFib had risen to 21.7% in the continuous monitoring arm versus 2.4% in the control arm (HR, 10.0; P < .001).

“At 12 months, we were seven times more likely to detect AF[ib] with continuous monitoring in these patients, and by 3 years, it was 10 times more likely that AF would be detected with continuous monitoring. I think we’ve settled the question of the best way to find AF[ib] in these patients – it is with an inserted device,” Dr. Schwamm said.

“We have also shown that this is not a transient rise in AFib after the stroke which then diminishes over the next few years. It is a continuous and progressive detection of AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that 88% of the recorded AFib episodes were asymptomatic. “So relying on patients self-reporting symptoms when deciding who to monitor is unreliable and not a sensible strategy.”

The median time to the first adjudicated AFib episode at 12-month follow-up was 99 days; at the 3-year follow-up, it was 284 days.

“This shows that 30 days of monitoring with an external patch is not sufficient to exclude the presence of AF[ib]. And this really argues for a strategy of immediate insertion of cardiac monitor placement if your goal is to look for AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm commented.
 

Is this clinically relevant AFib?

Dr. Schwamm acknowledged that there is a question of whether device-detected AFib should be thought about in the same way as clinically detected AFib with respect to future stroke risk.

He noted that, in this study, 67.4% of patients for whom AFib was detected by continuous monitoring (31 of 46 patients) had at least one episode of AFib that lasted more than 1 hour.

“This is not a trivial little squiggle of something on an EKG which then goes away. This is of significant duration that the cardiologist who adjudicated these rhythm strips felt confident was AF[ib].”

He added: “AF[ib] lasting more than 1 hour crosses the threshold for most practitioners I know to feel confident in treating the patient with anticoagulation. If it was symptomatic AF, this wouldn’t even be a question.”

Dr. Schwamm made the point that device-detected A AFib F has been accepted as worthy of treatment in patients after cryptogenic stroke.

“If we are honest with ourselves and if we have no hesitation in starting anticoagulation in a patient with cryptogenic stroke who has had device-detected AF 6 months later, should we decide that if the patient has had a lacunar stroke, we can ignore that same device-detected fibrillation?”

He put forward the idea that, at some level, all stroke is cryptogenic. “We never know for sure what the cause was. We have hypotheses, we have associations, but we don’t really know. So how much should we weigh that presumptive etiology in terms of how we interpret a rhythm disturbance of fibrillation?”

When looking for predictors of AFib in this study, the investigators found that patients were more likely to have an episode of AFib detected if they had one of the four following risk factors: congestive heart failure, left atrial enlargement, obesity, or QRS prolongation.

“In patients with any one of those four factors, 30% of those had device-detected AF[ib]. These are same predictors of AF[ib] that we are all accustomed to,” Dr. Schwamm said.
 

Shared decision-making

Dr. Schwamm said in an interview that, in his practice, for these patients, the decision as to whether to use continuous monitoring is made with the patient through shared decision-making.

“We discuss the chance that they could have AF[ib], and I suggest that it might be worth looking for it, but there are factors to be considered. There is a cost to the device, and reimbursement may depend on insurance coverage. Also, some patients may have strong feelings about having the chip implanted in their body.”

He says implanting the chip is easy. “It takes longer to check in at the front desk than to put the device in. It is injected under the skin. It just needs two stitches and a Band-Aid.” The device connects with a smartphone, and the results are interpreted by a cardiologist.

Dr. Schwamm pointed out that the optimal antithrombotic regimen for these patients in whom AFib is detected remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

“Do we just stick to antiplatelet therapy or advance to anticoagulation? In moving to an anticoagulant, are we providing less effective prevention for the atherosclerotic stroke risk at the expense of reducing the AF[ib]-related stroke risk? That may be a reasonable trade-off because we know the disability from AF[ib]-associated stroke is much higher.

“Or perhaps the optimal therapy is aspirin plus low-dose anticoagulant? Or left atrial appendage closure and an antiplatelet for patients at a higher risk of bleeding?” he said. “These are the really important questions we need to start asking.”

He added that he hopes a future study will address these questions, but he noted that it would have to be a large study, that it would have to first identify these patients and then randomly assign them to anticoagulation or to no treatment. “That is quite a major undertaking.”

In the highlights presentation, Dr. Jovin said he was uncertain of which of these patients in whom AFib is detected would benefit from anticoagulation. He said he would also like to see a randomized trial on this. But he added: “This would be challenging, as there is the issue of whether there would be equipoise to allow us to randomize to a placebo.”

Dr. Sansing agreed. “I think it would be a hard sell. I would have to think carefully about randomizing a patient to anticoagulation therapy or no therapy who has been found to have AF[ib].”

Dr. Schwamm noted that the current STROKE-AF study was not designed or powered to detect differences in stroke recurrence rates and that there was no difference in stroke recurrence rates between the two arms. There was also no randomization with regard to treatment; choice of medication was left to the discretion of the treating physician.

But he noted that only for 3 of the 34 patients with recurrent stroke in the continuous-monitor arm was AFib detected prior to the recurrent stroke, and only one of those three was receiving anticoagulation at the time of the recurrent stroke.

“These strokes were occurring in patients who did not have device-detected AF[ib],” Dr. Schwamm said. “This is because the population in this study were loaded with stroke risk factors and are at risk of recurrent stroke, but we don’t have the opportunity in this study to really understand the significance of the recurrent strokes.”

The STROKE AF trial was funded by Medtronic. Dr. Schwamm is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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