Cardiology News

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

NSAIDs don’t boost the risk of more severe disease or death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, a new study finds.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

“To our knowledge, our prospective study includes the largest number of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 to date, and adds to the literature on the safety of NSAIDs and in-hospital outcomes. NSAIDs do not appear to increase the risk of worse in-hospital outcomes ...” the study authors wrote. “NSAIDs are an important analgesic modality and have a vital opioid-sparing role in pain management. Patients and clinicians should be reassured by these findings that NSAIDs are safe in the context of the pandemic.”

The report was published online May 7 in The Lancet Rheumatology and led by clinical research fellow Thomas M. Drake, MBChB, of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute.

For more than a year, researchers worldwide have debated about whether NSAIDs spell trouble for people at risk of COVID-19. In March 2020, French health officials announced that use of the painkillers such as NSAIDs may increase the severity of the disease, and they recommended that patients take acetaminophen instead. The National Health Service in the United Kingdom made a similar recommendation. But other agencies didn’t believe there was enough evidence to support ditching NSAIDs, and recent research studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases and PLoS Medicine suggested they may be right.

For the new study, researchers identified 72,179 patients who were treated for COVID-19 in British hospitals during January-August 2020. About 56% were men, 74% were White, and 6% took NSAIDs on a regular basis before they entered the hospital. The average age was 70.

The researchers examined whether the patients in either group were more or less likely to die in the hospital, be admitted into a critical care unit, need oxygen treatment, need a ventilator, or suffer kidney injury.

In terms of outcomes, there weren’t any major gaps between the groups overall. The differences in most comparisons were statistically insignificant. For example, 31% of those who didn’t take NSAIDs died vs. 30% of those who did (P = .227). In both groups, 14% required critical care admission (P = .476).

The researchers then focused on two matched groups of 4,205 patients: One group used NSAIDs regularly, and the other group didn’t. The difference in risk of death in those who took NSAIDs vs. those who didn’t was statistically insignificant (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.07; P = .35). Other comparisons were also statistically insignificant.

The findings offer insight into whether the use of NSAIDs might actually be helpful for patients who develop COVID-19. Scientists believe that COVID-19 is linked to inflammation in the body, and NSAIDs, of course, reduce inflammation. But the researchers didn’t turn up any sign of a benefit.

The new study has some weaknesses: It doesn’t say anything about whether NSAIDs have an impact on whether people get COVID-19 in the first place. Researchers don’t know if high use of NSAIDs may affect the severity of the disease. And it doesn’t examine the potential effect of acetaminophen, although other research suggests the drug also may not cause harm in patients with COVID-19.

Still, the researchers say the study is the largest of its kind to look at the use of NSAIDs by patients who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19. “Considering all the evidence, if there was an extreme effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 outcomes or severity, this would have been observed in one or more of the studies that have been done, including the present study,” they wrote.

In a commentary that accompanied the study, three physicians from hospitals in Denmark, led by Kristian Kragholm, MD, of Aalborg University Hospital, praised the research and wrote that it adds to “a growing body of evidence” that NSAIDs don’t make things worse for patients with COVID-19.

The study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research and the U.K. Medical Research Council. The study and commentary authors reported no relevant disclosures.

Survival gains in the management of acute myocardial infarction in recent decades don’t apply to one increasingly common category of MI.

Type 2 MI, triggered by a surge in myocardial oxygen demand or a drop in its supply, is on the rise and might be more prognostically serious than the “classic” atherothrombotic type 1 form, for which there have been such impressive strides in therapy.

Strategies for assessing and treating type 2 MI and another condition it can resemble clinically – nonischemic myocardial injury – have been less rigorously explored and are far less settled.

That could be partly because recent iterations of the consensus-based universal definition of MI define type 1 MI primarily by the atherothrombotic process, whereas “demand” type 2 MI is characterized as secondary to other disorders. The list of potential primary conditions, cardiac and noncardiac, is long.

As a result, patients with type 1 MI are clinically well defined, but those with type 2 MI have so far defied efforts to be clinically characterized in a consistent way. However, recent efforts might change that, given growing appreciation that all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality outcomes are actually worse for patients with type 2 MI.

“That’s because we have lots of treatments for type 1 MI. Type 2 and myocardial injury? We don’t know how to treat them,” David E. Newby, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, said in an interview.

Dr. Newby pointed to a widely cited 2018 publication, of which he is a coauthor, documenting 5-year outcomes of 2,122 patients with type 1 MI, type 2 MI, or nonischemic myocardial injury per the newly minted fourth universal definition.

Risk-factor profiles for patients with the latter two conditions contrasted with those of patients with type 1 MI, he observed. They were “a lot older,” were less likely to be smokers, had more hypertension and previous stroke, and a less prominent CV family history.

“So they’re a different beast,” Dr. Newby said. And their prognosis tended to be worse: all-cause mortality was about 62% for patients with type 2 MI and 72% with nonischemic myocardial injury, but only 37% for patients with type 1 MI. The difference between the two types of infarction was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death after type 2 MI.

Mortality in patients with type 2 MI is “quite high, but it may well be a marker of the fact that you’ve got other serious diseases on board that are associated with poorer outcome,” he said.
 

Risk varies

The degree of risk in type 2 MI seems to vary with the underlying condition, a recent cohort study suggests. In about 3,800 patients with cardiac troponin (cTn) elevations qualifying as MI – a younger group; most were in their 30s and 40s – mortality at 10 years was 12% for those with type 1 MI, but 34% for those with type 2 MI and 46% for the remainder with nonischemic myocardial injury.

Underlying precipitating conditions varied widely among the patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury, and there was broad variation in mortality by etiology among those with type 2 MI. Sepsis and anemia entailed some of the highest risk, and hypertension and arrhythmias some of the lowest.

A prospective, community-based study of 5,460 patients with type 1 MI or type 2 MI reached a similar conclusion, but with a twist. Five-year all-cause mortality contrasted significantly between types of MI at 31% and 52%, respectively, but CV mortality rates were similar in this study.

Mortality in type 2 MI again varied by the precipitating etiology, suggesting that patients can be risk stratified according to pathophysiological mechanism behind their demand infarction, the authors concluded, “underscoring that type 2 MI is not a single entity, rather a group of phenotypic clusters.”

The usually high comorbidity burden and CV risk in patients with type 2 MI, one of those authors said in an interview, suggest there are “opportunities to see whether we can reduce that risk.”

Formal recommendations consistently say that, in patients with type 2 MI, “your first and foremost target should be to treat the underlying trigger and cause,” said Yader Sandoval, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. That means such opportunities for further CV risk reduction tend to be “underappreciated.”

“In principle, treating the inciting cause of type 2 MI or the injury is important,” said James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview, “but I feel quite strongly that there must be more that we can do for these folks.”

Dr. Januzzi is senior author on a recent analysis based on more than 200,000 admissions across the United States that saw a 43% lower risk for in-hospital death and 54% lower risk for 30-day MI readmission for patients with type 2 MI than those with type 1, adjusted for risk factors and comorbidities.

But, “it is important to emphasize that type 2 MI patients had a substantial risk for adverse outcome, nonetheless, and lack a clear management approach,” Dr. Januzzi and colleagues stated in their publication, as reported by this news organization.

“Due to the high rates of long-term cardiovascular events experienced by the frequently encountered type 2 MI patients,” they wrote, “identifying evidence-based therapies represents a major unmet need.”

That such patients tend to be sick with multiple comorbidities and have not yet been clinically well characterized, Dr. Januzzi said, “has stymied our ability to develop a treatment strategy.”
 

Role of the universal definitions

That challenge might in some ways be complicated by the universal definition, especially version 4, in which the definitions for type 1 MI, type 2 MI, and nonischemic myocardial injury are unified biochemically.

This version, published in 2018 in the European Heart Journal and Circulation, introduced a formal definition of myocardial injury, which was hailed as an innovation: cTn elevation to the 99th percentile of the upper limit of normal in a reference population.

It differentiates type 1 MI from type 2 MI by the separate pathophysiology of the ischemia – plaque rupture with intracoronary thrombosis and myocardial oxygen supply–demand mismatch, respectively. In both cases, however, there must be symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia. Absent signs of ischemia, the determination would be nonischemic myocardial injury.

Yet clinically and prognostically, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury in some ways are more similar to each other than either is to type 1 MI. Both occur secondary to other conditions across diverse clinical settings and can be a challenge to tell apart.

The universal definition’s perspective of the three events – so heavily dependent on cTn levels and myocardial ischemia – fails to account for the myriad complexities of individual patients in practice, some say, and so can muddle the process of risk assessment and therapy.

“Abnormal troponin identifies injury, but it doesn’t identify mechanism. Type 2 MI is highly prevalent, but there are other things that cause abnormal troponins,” Dr. Januzzi said. That’s why it’s important to explore and map out the clinical variables associated with the two conditions, to “understand who has a type 2 MI and who has cardiac injury. And believe it or not, it’s actually harder than it sounds to sort that out.”

“Practically speaking, the differentiation between these events is clinical,” Dr. Sandoval agreed. “There’s not always perfect agreement on what we’re calling what.”

Consequently, the universal definitions might categorize some events in ways that seem inconsistent from a management perspective. For example, they make a sharp distinction between coronary atherothrombotic and coronary nonatherothrombotic MI etiologies. Some clinicians would group MI caused by coronary spasm, coronary embolism, or spontaneous coronary artery dissection along with MI from coronary plaque rupture and thrombosis. But, Dr. Sandoval said, “even though these are coronary issues, they would fall into the type 2 bin.”

Also, about half of cases identified as type 2 MI are caused by tachyarrhythmias, which can elevate troponin and cause ECG changes and possibly symptoms resembling angina, Dr. Newby observed. “But that is completely different from other types of myocardial infarction, which are much more serious.”

So, “it’s a real mess of a diagnosis – acute myocardial injury, type 2 and type 1 MI – and it can be quite difficult to disentangle,” he said. “I think that the definition certainly has let us down.”

The diversity of type 2 MI clinical settings might also be a challenge. Myocardial injury according to cTn, with or without ischemia, occurs widely during critical illnesses and acute conditions, including respiratory distress, sepsis, internal bleeding, stroke, and pulmonary embolism.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, much was made of elevated troponin levels and myocarditis as an apparently frequent complication among hospitalized patients. “I raised my hand and said, we’ve been seeing abnormal troponins in people with influenza for 20 years,” Dr. Januzzi said. “Critical illness, infection, toxicity from drugs, from chemotherapy, from alcohol – there are all sorts of potential triggers of myocardial injury.”
 

Troponin ‘overdependence’

With many clinical settings in common and the presence or absence of myocardial ischemia to primarily distinguish them, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury both can be mistaken for the other. That can send management decisions in inappropriate directions.

A 2019 study looked at 633 cases that had been coded as type 2 MI at a major center and readjudicated them according to the fourth universal definition. Only 57% met all the type 2 criteria, 42% were reclassified as nonischemic myocardial injury, and a few were determined to have unstable angina.

“There’s overdependence on the easiest tool in the universal definition,” said Dr. Januzzi, a coauthor on that study. “Frequently people get seduced by the rise in a troponin value and immediately call it a myocardial infarction, lacking the other components of the universal definition that require evidence for coronary ischemia. That happens every day, where someone with an abnormal troponin is incorrectly branded as having an MI.”

It may not help that the current ICD-10-CM system features a diagnostic code for type 2 MI but not for myocardial injury.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” wrote Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, in a recent editorial. They caution against “using this code for myocardial injury because it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading,” thereby worsening the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

That potential suggests there could be a growing population of patients who have been told they had an MI, which then becomes part of their medical record, when, actually, they experienced nonischemic myocardial injury.

“Having seen this occur,” Dr. Januzzi explained, “it affects people emotionally to think they’ve had an MI. Precision in diagnosis is important, which is why the universal definition is so valuable. If people would adhere to it more assiduously, we could reduce the frequency of people getting a misdiagnosis of MI when in fact they had injury.”

Still, he added, “if someone has an illness severe enough to cause myocardial injury, they’re at risk for a bad outcome regardless of whether they did or didn’t have an MI.”
 

The uncertain role of angiography

Angiography isn’t ordered nearly as often for patients ultimately diagnosed with type 2 MI or myocardial injury as for those with type 1 MI. Type 2 MI can hit some patients who have remained symptom free despite possibly unrecognized obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) when myocardial demand is pushed past supply by a critical illness, tachyarrhythmia, or other acute conditions.

In such cases, “it’s reasonable to hypothesize that revascularization, something that really is not done in the vast majority of patients with type 2 MI, might actually be of benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said.

Whether these patients should routinely have angiography remains an open question. Without intervention, any newly identified obstructive CAD would continue to lurk in the background as a potential threat.

In efforts to differentiate type 2 MI from nonischemic injury, it can be “incredibly hard to know whether or not there’s actual ischemia in the mix. And that’s the only thing that defines the difference before taking an angiogram,” Derek P. Chew, MBBS, MPH, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia, said in an interview.

Dr. Chew is principal investigator for the ongoing ACT-2 trial that is enrolling hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with cTn elevations but no suspicion of type 1 MI and “an unequivocal acute intercurrent diagnosis.” Qualifying diagnoses are prespecified on a list that includes sepsis, pneumonia, septicemia, a systemic inflammatory response, anemia, atrial tachycardia, acute kidney injury, and recent noncardiac surgery.

The patients are randomly assigned to a strategy of routine, usually invasive coronary angiography with discretionary revascularization, or to conservative care with noninvasive functional testing as appropriate. The sicker the patient, the greater the competing risk from other conditions and the less revascularization is likely to improve outcomes, Dr. Chew observed. Importantly, therefore, outcomes in the trial will be stratified by patient risk from comorbidities, measured with baseline GRACE and APACHE III scores.

Dr. Chew said the study aims to determine whether routine angiography is of benefit in patients at some identifiable level of risk, if not the whole range. One possible result, he said, is that there could be a risk-profile “sweet spot” associated with better outcomes in those assigned to angiography.

Enrollment in the trial started about 3 years ago, but “the process has been slow,” he said, because many potentially referring clinicians have a “bias on one side or another,” with about half of them preferring the angiography approach and the other half conservative management.
 

The unsettled role of drug therapy

With their often-complicated clinical profile, patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury tend to be medically undertreated, yet there is observational evidence they can benefit from familiar drug therapies.

In the previously noted cohort study of 3,800 younger patients with one of the three forms of myocardial injury, less than half of patients with type 2 MI received any form of CAD secondary prevention therapy at discharge, the researchers, with first author Avinainder Singh, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn, wrote.

The finding, consistent with Dr. Newby’s study from 2018, suggests that “categorizing the type of MI in young subjects might inform long-term cardiovascular prognosis,” and “emphasizes the need to identify and implement secondary prevention strategies to mitigate the high rate of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 MI,” they concluded.

Further, outcomes varied with the number of discharge CV meds in an older cohort of patients with myocardial injury. Those with type 2 MI or acute or chronic nonischemic myocardial injury were far less likely than patients with type 1 MI to be prescribed guideline-based drugs. Survival was greater for those on two or three classes of CV medications, compared with one or none, in patients with acute or chronic nonischemic injury.

The investigators urged that patients with nonischemic myocardial injury or type 2 MI “be treated with cardiovascular medication to a larger degree than what is done today.”

When there is documented CAD in patients with type 2 MI, “it would be reasonable to suggest that preventative secondary prevention approaches, such as such lipid-reduction therapy or aspirin, would be beneficial,” Dr. Sandoval said. “But the reality is, there are no randomized trials, there are no prospective studies. ACT-2 is one of the few and early studies that’s really trying to address this.”

“The great majority of these people are not going to the cath lab, but when they do, there seems to be a signal of potential benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said. “For someone with a type 2 MI, it’s quite possible revascularization might help. Then more long-term treatment with medications that are proven in randomized trials to reduce risk would be a very plausible intervention.”

“We’ve actually proposed a number of potential therapeutic interventions to explore, both in people with type 2 MI and in people with injury without MI,” he said. “They might include sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. They might include antithrombotic therapy or more aggressive lipid lowering, possibly for the pleiotropic effects rather than the effects on atherosclerosis.”

Any such therapies that prove successful in well-designed trials could well earn both type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury, neglected as disorders in their own right, the kind of respect in clinical care pathways that they likely deserve.

Dr. Newby has disclosed receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Eli Lilly, Roche, Toshiba, Jansen, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, CellProthera, and Oncoarendi; and conducting research or receiving grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inositec. Sandoval reports serving on an advisory board and as a speaker for Abbott Diagnostics and on an advisory board for Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi has disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on endpoint committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Chew has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca and Edwards Life Sciences. ACT-2 is sponsored by the National Medical and Health Research Council of Australia.

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

Survival gains in the management of acute myocardial infarction in recent decades don’t apply to one increasingly common category of MI.

Type 2 MI, triggered by a surge in myocardial oxygen demand or a drop in its supply, is on the rise and might be more prognostically serious than the “classic” atherothrombotic type 1 form, for which there have been such impressive strides in therapy.

Strategies for assessing and treating type 2 MI and another condition it can resemble clinically – nonischemic myocardial injury – have been less rigorously explored and are far less settled.

That could be partly because recent iterations of the consensus-based universal definition of MI define type 1 MI primarily by the atherothrombotic process, whereas “demand” type 2 MI is characterized as secondary to other disorders. The list of potential primary conditions, cardiac and noncardiac, is long.

As a result, patients with type 1 MI are clinically well defined, but those with type 2 MI have so far defied efforts to be clinically characterized in a consistent way. However, recent efforts might change that, given growing appreciation that all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality outcomes are actually worse for patients with type 2 MI.

“That’s because we have lots of treatments for type 1 MI. Type 2 and myocardial injury? We don’t know how to treat them,” David E. Newby, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, said in an interview.

Dr. Newby pointed to a widely cited 2018 publication, of which he is a coauthor, documenting 5-year outcomes of 2,122 patients with type 1 MI, type 2 MI, or nonischemic myocardial injury per the newly minted fourth universal definition.

Risk-factor profiles for patients with the latter two conditions contrasted with those of patients with type 1 MI, he observed. They were “a lot older,” were less likely to be smokers, had more hypertension and previous stroke, and a less prominent CV family history.

“So they’re a different beast,” Dr. Newby said. And their prognosis tended to be worse: all-cause mortality was about 62% for patients with type 2 MI and 72% with nonischemic myocardial injury, but only 37% for patients with type 1 MI. The difference between the two types of infarction was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death after type 2 MI.

Mortality in patients with type 2 MI is “quite high, but it may well be a marker of the fact that you’ve got other serious diseases on board that are associated with poorer outcome,” he said.
 

Risk varies

The degree of risk in type 2 MI seems to vary with the underlying condition, a recent cohort study suggests. In about 3,800 patients with cardiac troponin (cTn) elevations qualifying as MI – a younger group; most were in their 30s and 40s – mortality at 10 years was 12% for those with type 1 MI, but 34% for those with type 2 MI and 46% for the remainder with nonischemic myocardial injury.

Underlying precipitating conditions varied widely among the patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury, and there was broad variation in mortality by etiology among those with type 2 MI. Sepsis and anemia entailed some of the highest risk, and hypertension and arrhythmias some of the lowest.

A prospective, community-based study of 5,460 patients with type 1 MI or type 2 MI reached a similar conclusion, but with a twist. Five-year all-cause mortality contrasted significantly between types of MI at 31% and 52%, respectively, but CV mortality rates were similar in this study.

Mortality in type 2 MI again varied by the precipitating etiology, suggesting that patients can be risk stratified according to pathophysiological mechanism behind their demand infarction, the authors concluded, “underscoring that type 2 MI is not a single entity, rather a group of phenotypic clusters.”

The usually high comorbidity burden and CV risk in patients with type 2 MI, one of those authors said in an interview, suggest there are “opportunities to see whether we can reduce that risk.”

Formal recommendations consistently say that, in patients with type 2 MI, “your first and foremost target should be to treat the underlying trigger and cause,” said Yader Sandoval, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. That means such opportunities for further CV risk reduction tend to be “underappreciated.”

“In principle, treating the inciting cause of type 2 MI or the injury is important,” said James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview, “but I feel quite strongly that there must be more that we can do for these folks.”

Dr. Januzzi is senior author on a recent analysis based on more than 200,000 admissions across the United States that saw a 43% lower risk for in-hospital death and 54% lower risk for 30-day MI readmission for patients with type 2 MI than those with type 1, adjusted for risk factors and comorbidities.

But, “it is important to emphasize that type 2 MI patients had a substantial risk for adverse outcome, nonetheless, and lack a clear management approach,” Dr. Januzzi and colleagues stated in their publication, as reported by this news organization.

“Due to the high rates of long-term cardiovascular events experienced by the frequently encountered type 2 MI patients,” they wrote, “identifying evidence-based therapies represents a major unmet need.”

That such patients tend to be sick with multiple comorbidities and have not yet been clinically well characterized, Dr. Januzzi said, “has stymied our ability to develop a treatment strategy.”
 

Role of the universal definitions

That challenge might in some ways be complicated by the universal definition, especially version 4, in which the definitions for type 1 MI, type 2 MI, and nonischemic myocardial injury are unified biochemically.

This version, published in 2018 in the European Heart Journal and Circulation, introduced a formal definition of myocardial injury, which was hailed as an innovation: cTn elevation to the 99th percentile of the upper limit of normal in a reference population.

It differentiates type 1 MI from type 2 MI by the separate pathophysiology of the ischemia – plaque rupture with intracoronary thrombosis and myocardial oxygen supply–demand mismatch, respectively. In both cases, however, there must be symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia. Absent signs of ischemia, the determination would be nonischemic myocardial injury.

Yet clinically and prognostically, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury in some ways are more similar to each other than either is to type 1 MI. Both occur secondary to other conditions across diverse clinical settings and can be a challenge to tell apart.

The universal definition’s perspective of the three events – so heavily dependent on cTn levels and myocardial ischemia – fails to account for the myriad complexities of individual patients in practice, some say, and so can muddle the process of risk assessment and therapy.

“Abnormal troponin identifies injury, but it doesn’t identify mechanism. Type 2 MI is highly prevalent, but there are other things that cause abnormal troponins,” Dr. Januzzi said. That’s why it’s important to explore and map out the clinical variables associated with the two conditions, to “understand who has a type 2 MI and who has cardiac injury. And believe it or not, it’s actually harder than it sounds to sort that out.”

“Practically speaking, the differentiation between these events is clinical,” Dr. Sandoval agreed. “There’s not always perfect agreement on what we’re calling what.”

Consequently, the universal definitions might categorize some events in ways that seem inconsistent from a management perspective. For example, they make a sharp distinction between coronary atherothrombotic and coronary nonatherothrombotic MI etiologies. Some clinicians would group MI caused by coronary spasm, coronary embolism, or spontaneous coronary artery dissection along with MI from coronary plaque rupture and thrombosis. But, Dr. Sandoval said, “even though these are coronary issues, they would fall into the type 2 bin.”

Also, about half of cases identified as type 2 MI are caused by tachyarrhythmias, which can elevate troponin and cause ECG changes and possibly symptoms resembling angina, Dr. Newby observed. “But that is completely different from other types of myocardial infarction, which are much more serious.”

So, “it’s a real mess of a diagnosis – acute myocardial injury, type 2 and type 1 MI – and it can be quite difficult to disentangle,” he said. “I think that the definition certainly has let us down.”

The diversity of type 2 MI clinical settings might also be a challenge. Myocardial injury according to cTn, with or without ischemia, occurs widely during critical illnesses and acute conditions, including respiratory distress, sepsis, internal bleeding, stroke, and pulmonary embolism.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, much was made of elevated troponin levels and myocarditis as an apparently frequent complication among hospitalized patients. “I raised my hand and said, we’ve been seeing abnormal troponins in people with influenza for 20 years,” Dr. Januzzi said. “Critical illness, infection, toxicity from drugs, from chemotherapy, from alcohol – there are all sorts of potential triggers of myocardial injury.”
 

Troponin ‘overdependence’

With many clinical settings in common and the presence or absence of myocardial ischemia to primarily distinguish them, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury both can be mistaken for the other. That can send management decisions in inappropriate directions.

A 2019 study looked at 633 cases that had been coded as type 2 MI at a major center and readjudicated them according to the fourth universal definition. Only 57% met all the type 2 criteria, 42% were reclassified as nonischemic myocardial injury, and a few were determined to have unstable angina.

“There’s overdependence on the easiest tool in the universal definition,” said Dr. Januzzi, a coauthor on that study. “Frequently people get seduced by the rise in a troponin value and immediately call it a myocardial infarction, lacking the other components of the universal definition that require evidence for coronary ischemia. That happens every day, where someone with an abnormal troponin is incorrectly branded as having an MI.”

It may not help that the current ICD-10-CM system features a diagnostic code for type 2 MI but not for myocardial injury.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” wrote Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, in a recent editorial. They caution against “using this code for myocardial injury because it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading,” thereby worsening the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

That potential suggests there could be a growing population of patients who have been told they had an MI, which then becomes part of their medical record, when, actually, they experienced nonischemic myocardial injury.

“Having seen this occur,” Dr. Januzzi explained, “it affects people emotionally to think they’ve had an MI. Precision in diagnosis is important, which is why the universal definition is so valuable. If people would adhere to it more assiduously, we could reduce the frequency of people getting a misdiagnosis of MI when in fact they had injury.”

Still, he added, “if someone has an illness severe enough to cause myocardial injury, they’re at risk for a bad outcome regardless of whether they did or didn’t have an MI.”
 

The uncertain role of angiography

Angiography isn’t ordered nearly as often for patients ultimately diagnosed with type 2 MI or myocardial injury as for those with type 1 MI. Type 2 MI can hit some patients who have remained symptom free despite possibly unrecognized obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) when myocardial demand is pushed past supply by a critical illness, tachyarrhythmia, or other acute conditions.

In such cases, “it’s reasonable to hypothesize that revascularization, something that really is not done in the vast majority of patients with type 2 MI, might actually be of benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said.

Whether these patients should routinely have angiography remains an open question. Without intervention, any newly identified obstructive CAD would continue to lurk in the background as a potential threat.

In efforts to differentiate type 2 MI from nonischemic injury, it can be “incredibly hard to know whether or not there’s actual ischemia in the mix. And that’s the only thing that defines the difference before taking an angiogram,” Derek P. Chew, MBBS, MPH, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia, said in an interview.

Dr. Chew is principal investigator for the ongoing ACT-2 trial that is enrolling hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with cTn elevations but no suspicion of type 1 MI and “an unequivocal acute intercurrent diagnosis.” Qualifying diagnoses are prespecified on a list that includes sepsis, pneumonia, septicemia, a systemic inflammatory response, anemia, atrial tachycardia, acute kidney injury, and recent noncardiac surgery.

The patients are randomly assigned to a strategy of routine, usually invasive coronary angiography with discretionary revascularization, or to conservative care with noninvasive functional testing as appropriate. The sicker the patient, the greater the competing risk from other conditions and the less revascularization is likely to improve outcomes, Dr. Chew observed. Importantly, therefore, outcomes in the trial will be stratified by patient risk from comorbidities, measured with baseline GRACE and APACHE III scores.

Dr. Chew said the study aims to determine whether routine angiography is of benefit in patients at some identifiable level of risk, if not the whole range. One possible result, he said, is that there could be a risk-profile “sweet spot” associated with better outcomes in those assigned to angiography.

Enrollment in the trial started about 3 years ago, but “the process has been slow,” he said, because many potentially referring clinicians have a “bias on one side or another,” with about half of them preferring the angiography approach and the other half conservative management.
 

The unsettled role of drug therapy

With their often-complicated clinical profile, patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury tend to be medically undertreated, yet there is observational evidence they can benefit from familiar drug therapies.

In the previously noted cohort study of 3,800 younger patients with one of the three forms of myocardial injury, less than half of patients with type 2 MI received any form of CAD secondary prevention therapy at discharge, the researchers, with first author Avinainder Singh, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn, wrote.

The finding, consistent with Dr. Newby’s study from 2018, suggests that “categorizing the type of MI in young subjects might inform long-term cardiovascular prognosis,” and “emphasizes the need to identify and implement secondary prevention strategies to mitigate the high rate of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 MI,” they concluded.

Further, outcomes varied with the number of discharge CV meds in an older cohort of patients with myocardial injury. Those with type 2 MI or acute or chronic nonischemic myocardial injury were far less likely than patients with type 1 MI to be prescribed guideline-based drugs. Survival was greater for those on two or three classes of CV medications, compared with one or none, in patients with acute or chronic nonischemic injury.

The investigators urged that patients with nonischemic myocardial injury or type 2 MI “be treated with cardiovascular medication to a larger degree than what is done today.”

When there is documented CAD in patients with type 2 MI, “it would be reasonable to suggest that preventative secondary prevention approaches, such as such lipid-reduction therapy or aspirin, would be beneficial,” Dr. Sandoval said. “But the reality is, there are no randomized trials, there are no prospective studies. ACT-2 is one of the few and early studies that’s really trying to address this.”

“The great majority of these people are not going to the cath lab, but when they do, there seems to be a signal of potential benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said. “For someone with a type 2 MI, it’s quite possible revascularization might help. Then more long-term treatment with medications that are proven in randomized trials to reduce risk would be a very plausible intervention.”

“We’ve actually proposed a number of potential therapeutic interventions to explore, both in people with type 2 MI and in people with injury without MI,” he said. “They might include sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. They might include antithrombotic therapy or more aggressive lipid lowering, possibly for the pleiotropic effects rather than the effects on atherosclerosis.”

Any such therapies that prove successful in well-designed trials could well earn both type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury, neglected as disorders in their own right, the kind of respect in clinical care pathways that they likely deserve.

Dr. Newby has disclosed receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Eli Lilly, Roche, Toshiba, Jansen, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, CellProthera, and Oncoarendi; and conducting research or receiving grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inositec. Sandoval reports serving on an advisory board and as a speaker for Abbott Diagnostics and on an advisory board for Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi has disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on endpoint committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Chew has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca and Edwards Life Sciences. ACT-2 is sponsored by the National Medical and Health Research Council of Australia.

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

Survival gains in the management of acute myocardial infarction in recent decades don’t apply to one increasingly common category of MI.

Type 2 MI, triggered by a surge in myocardial oxygen demand or a drop in its supply, is on the rise and might be more prognostically serious than the “classic” atherothrombotic type 1 form, for which there have been such impressive strides in therapy.

Strategies for assessing and treating type 2 MI and another condition it can resemble clinically – nonischemic myocardial injury – have been less rigorously explored and are far less settled.

That could be partly because recent iterations of the consensus-based universal definition of MI define type 1 MI primarily by the atherothrombotic process, whereas “demand” type 2 MI is characterized as secondary to other disorders. The list of potential primary conditions, cardiac and noncardiac, is long.

As a result, patients with type 1 MI are clinically well defined, but those with type 2 MI have so far defied efforts to be clinically characterized in a consistent way. However, recent efforts might change that, given growing appreciation that all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality outcomes are actually worse for patients with type 2 MI.

“That’s because we have lots of treatments for type 1 MI. Type 2 and myocardial injury? We don’t know how to treat them,” David E. Newby, MD, PhD, University of Edinburgh, said in an interview.

Dr. Newby pointed to a widely cited 2018 publication, of which he is a coauthor, documenting 5-year outcomes of 2,122 patients with type 1 MI, type 2 MI, or nonischemic myocardial injury per the newly minted fourth universal definition.

Risk-factor profiles for patients with the latter two conditions contrasted with those of patients with type 1 MI, he observed. They were “a lot older,” were less likely to be smokers, had more hypertension and previous stroke, and a less prominent CV family history.

“So they’re a different beast,” Dr. Newby said. And their prognosis tended to be worse: all-cause mortality was about 62% for patients with type 2 MI and 72% with nonischemic myocardial injury, but only 37% for patients with type 1 MI. The difference between the two types of infarction was driven by an excess of noncardiovascular death after type 2 MI.

Mortality in patients with type 2 MI is “quite high, but it may well be a marker of the fact that you’ve got other serious diseases on board that are associated with poorer outcome,” he said.
 

Risk varies

The degree of risk in type 2 MI seems to vary with the underlying condition, a recent cohort study suggests. In about 3,800 patients with cardiac troponin (cTn) elevations qualifying as MI – a younger group; most were in their 30s and 40s – mortality at 10 years was 12% for those with type 1 MI, but 34% for those with type 2 MI and 46% for the remainder with nonischemic myocardial injury.

Underlying precipitating conditions varied widely among the patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury, and there was broad variation in mortality by etiology among those with type 2 MI. Sepsis and anemia entailed some of the highest risk, and hypertension and arrhythmias some of the lowest.

A prospective, community-based study of 5,460 patients with type 1 MI or type 2 MI reached a similar conclusion, but with a twist. Five-year all-cause mortality contrasted significantly between types of MI at 31% and 52%, respectively, but CV mortality rates were similar in this study.

Mortality in type 2 MI again varied by the precipitating etiology, suggesting that patients can be risk stratified according to pathophysiological mechanism behind their demand infarction, the authors concluded, “underscoring that type 2 MI is not a single entity, rather a group of phenotypic clusters.”

The usually high comorbidity burden and CV risk in patients with type 2 MI, one of those authors said in an interview, suggest there are “opportunities to see whether we can reduce that risk.”

Formal recommendations consistently say that, in patients with type 2 MI, “your first and foremost target should be to treat the underlying trigger and cause,” said Yader Sandoval, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. That means such opportunities for further CV risk reduction tend to be “underappreciated.”

“In principle, treating the inciting cause of type 2 MI or the injury is important,” said James L. Januzzi, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an interview, “but I feel quite strongly that there must be more that we can do for these folks.”

Dr. Januzzi is senior author on a recent analysis based on more than 200,000 admissions across the United States that saw a 43% lower risk for in-hospital death and 54% lower risk for 30-day MI readmission for patients with type 2 MI than those with type 1, adjusted for risk factors and comorbidities.

But, “it is important to emphasize that type 2 MI patients had a substantial risk for adverse outcome, nonetheless, and lack a clear management approach,” Dr. Januzzi and colleagues stated in their publication, as reported by this news organization.

“Due to the high rates of long-term cardiovascular events experienced by the frequently encountered type 2 MI patients,” they wrote, “identifying evidence-based therapies represents a major unmet need.”

That such patients tend to be sick with multiple comorbidities and have not yet been clinically well characterized, Dr. Januzzi said, “has stymied our ability to develop a treatment strategy.”
 

Role of the universal definitions

That challenge might in some ways be complicated by the universal definition, especially version 4, in which the definitions for type 1 MI, type 2 MI, and nonischemic myocardial injury are unified biochemically.

This version, published in 2018 in the European Heart Journal and Circulation, introduced a formal definition of myocardial injury, which was hailed as an innovation: cTn elevation to the 99th percentile of the upper limit of normal in a reference population.

It differentiates type 1 MI from type 2 MI by the separate pathophysiology of the ischemia – plaque rupture with intracoronary thrombosis and myocardial oxygen supply–demand mismatch, respectively. In both cases, however, there must be symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia. Absent signs of ischemia, the determination would be nonischemic myocardial injury.

Yet clinically and prognostically, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury in some ways are more similar to each other than either is to type 1 MI. Both occur secondary to other conditions across diverse clinical settings and can be a challenge to tell apart.

The universal definition’s perspective of the three events – so heavily dependent on cTn levels and myocardial ischemia – fails to account for the myriad complexities of individual patients in practice, some say, and so can muddle the process of risk assessment and therapy.

“Abnormal troponin identifies injury, but it doesn’t identify mechanism. Type 2 MI is highly prevalent, but there are other things that cause abnormal troponins,” Dr. Januzzi said. That’s why it’s important to explore and map out the clinical variables associated with the two conditions, to “understand who has a type 2 MI and who has cardiac injury. And believe it or not, it’s actually harder than it sounds to sort that out.”

“Practically speaking, the differentiation between these events is clinical,” Dr. Sandoval agreed. “There’s not always perfect agreement on what we’re calling what.”

Consequently, the universal definitions might categorize some events in ways that seem inconsistent from a management perspective. For example, they make a sharp distinction between coronary atherothrombotic and coronary nonatherothrombotic MI etiologies. Some clinicians would group MI caused by coronary spasm, coronary embolism, or spontaneous coronary artery dissection along with MI from coronary plaque rupture and thrombosis. But, Dr. Sandoval said, “even though these are coronary issues, they would fall into the type 2 bin.”

Also, about half of cases identified as type 2 MI are caused by tachyarrhythmias, which can elevate troponin and cause ECG changes and possibly symptoms resembling angina, Dr. Newby observed. “But that is completely different from other types of myocardial infarction, which are much more serious.”

So, “it’s a real mess of a diagnosis – acute myocardial injury, type 2 and type 1 MI – and it can be quite difficult to disentangle,” he said. “I think that the definition certainly has let us down.”

The diversity of type 2 MI clinical settings might also be a challenge. Myocardial injury according to cTn, with or without ischemia, occurs widely during critical illnesses and acute conditions, including respiratory distress, sepsis, internal bleeding, stroke, and pulmonary embolism.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, much was made of elevated troponin levels and myocarditis as an apparently frequent complication among hospitalized patients. “I raised my hand and said, we’ve been seeing abnormal troponins in people with influenza for 20 years,” Dr. Januzzi said. “Critical illness, infection, toxicity from drugs, from chemotherapy, from alcohol – there are all sorts of potential triggers of myocardial injury.”
 

Troponin ‘overdependence’

With many clinical settings in common and the presence or absence of myocardial ischemia to primarily distinguish them, type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury both can be mistaken for the other. That can send management decisions in inappropriate directions.

A 2019 study looked at 633 cases that had been coded as type 2 MI at a major center and readjudicated them according to the fourth universal definition. Only 57% met all the type 2 criteria, 42% were reclassified as nonischemic myocardial injury, and a few were determined to have unstable angina.

“There’s overdependence on the easiest tool in the universal definition,” said Dr. Januzzi, a coauthor on that study. “Frequently people get seduced by the rise in a troponin value and immediately call it a myocardial infarction, lacking the other components of the universal definition that require evidence for coronary ischemia. That happens every day, where someone with an abnormal troponin is incorrectly branded as having an MI.”

It may not help that the current ICD-10-CM system features a diagnostic code for type 2 MI but not for myocardial injury.

“Instead, the new ICD-10-CM coding includes a proxy called ‘non-MI troponin elevation due to an underlying cause,’ ” wrote Kristian Thygesen, MD, DSc, and Allan S. Jaffe, MD, in a recent editorial. They caution against “using this code for myocardial injury because it is not specific for an elevated cTn value and could represent any abnormal laboratory measurements.” The code could be “misleading,” thereby worsening the potential for miscoding and “misattribution of MI diagnoses.”

That potential suggests there could be a growing population of patients who have been told they had an MI, which then becomes part of their medical record, when, actually, they experienced nonischemic myocardial injury.

“Having seen this occur,” Dr. Januzzi explained, “it affects people emotionally to think they’ve had an MI. Precision in diagnosis is important, which is why the universal definition is so valuable. If people would adhere to it more assiduously, we could reduce the frequency of people getting a misdiagnosis of MI when in fact they had injury.”

Still, he added, “if someone has an illness severe enough to cause myocardial injury, they’re at risk for a bad outcome regardless of whether they did or didn’t have an MI.”
 

The uncertain role of angiography

Angiography isn’t ordered nearly as often for patients ultimately diagnosed with type 2 MI or myocardial injury as for those with type 1 MI. Type 2 MI can hit some patients who have remained symptom free despite possibly unrecognized obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) when myocardial demand is pushed past supply by a critical illness, tachyarrhythmia, or other acute conditions.

In such cases, “it’s reasonable to hypothesize that revascularization, something that really is not done in the vast majority of patients with type 2 MI, might actually be of benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said.

Whether these patients should routinely have angiography remains an open question. Without intervention, any newly identified obstructive CAD would continue to lurk in the background as a potential threat.

In efforts to differentiate type 2 MI from nonischemic injury, it can be “incredibly hard to know whether or not there’s actual ischemia in the mix. And that’s the only thing that defines the difference before taking an angiogram,” Derek P. Chew, MBBS, MPH, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, Australia, said in an interview.

Dr. Chew is principal investigator for the ongoing ACT-2 trial that is enrolling hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with cTn elevations but no suspicion of type 1 MI and “an unequivocal acute intercurrent diagnosis.” Qualifying diagnoses are prespecified on a list that includes sepsis, pneumonia, septicemia, a systemic inflammatory response, anemia, atrial tachycardia, acute kidney injury, and recent noncardiac surgery.

The patients are randomly assigned to a strategy of routine, usually invasive coronary angiography with discretionary revascularization, or to conservative care with noninvasive functional testing as appropriate. The sicker the patient, the greater the competing risk from other conditions and the less revascularization is likely to improve outcomes, Dr. Chew observed. Importantly, therefore, outcomes in the trial will be stratified by patient risk from comorbidities, measured with baseline GRACE and APACHE III scores.

Dr. Chew said the study aims to determine whether routine angiography is of benefit in patients at some identifiable level of risk, if not the whole range. One possible result, he said, is that there could be a risk-profile “sweet spot” associated with better outcomes in those assigned to angiography.

Enrollment in the trial started about 3 years ago, but “the process has been slow,” he said, because many potentially referring clinicians have a “bias on one side or another,” with about half of them preferring the angiography approach and the other half conservative management.
 

The unsettled role of drug therapy

With their often-complicated clinical profile, patients with type 2 MI or nonischemic myocardial injury tend to be medically undertreated, yet there is observational evidence they can benefit from familiar drug therapies.

In the previously noted cohort study of 3,800 younger patients with one of the three forms of myocardial injury, less than half of patients with type 2 MI received any form of CAD secondary prevention therapy at discharge, the researchers, with first author Avinainder Singh, MD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn, wrote.

The finding, consistent with Dr. Newby’s study from 2018, suggests that “categorizing the type of MI in young subjects might inform long-term cardiovascular prognosis,” and “emphasizes the need to identify and implement secondary prevention strategies to mitigate the high rate of cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 MI,” they concluded.

Further, outcomes varied with the number of discharge CV meds in an older cohort of patients with myocardial injury. Those with type 2 MI or acute or chronic nonischemic myocardial injury were far less likely than patients with type 1 MI to be prescribed guideline-based drugs. Survival was greater for those on two or three classes of CV medications, compared with one or none, in patients with acute or chronic nonischemic injury.

The investigators urged that patients with nonischemic myocardial injury or type 2 MI “be treated with cardiovascular medication to a larger degree than what is done today.”

When there is documented CAD in patients with type 2 MI, “it would be reasonable to suggest that preventative secondary prevention approaches, such as such lipid-reduction therapy or aspirin, would be beneficial,” Dr. Sandoval said. “But the reality is, there are no randomized trials, there are no prospective studies. ACT-2 is one of the few and early studies that’s really trying to address this.”

“The great majority of these people are not going to the cath lab, but when they do, there seems to be a signal of potential benefit,” Dr. Januzzi said. “For someone with a type 2 MI, it’s quite possible revascularization might help. Then more long-term treatment with medications that are proven in randomized trials to reduce risk would be a very plausible intervention.”

“We’ve actually proposed a number of potential therapeutic interventions to explore, both in people with type 2 MI and in people with injury without MI,” he said. “They might include sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. They might include antithrombotic therapy or more aggressive lipid lowering, possibly for the pleiotropic effects rather than the effects on atherosclerosis.”

Any such therapies that prove successful in well-designed trials could well earn both type 2 MI and nonischemic myocardial injury, neglected as disorders in their own right, the kind of respect in clinical care pathways that they likely deserve.

Dr. Newby has disclosed receiving consulting fees or honoraria from Eli Lilly, Roche, Toshiba, Jansen, Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, CellProthera, and Oncoarendi; and conducting research or receiving grants from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Inositec. Sandoval reports serving on an advisory board and as a speaker for Abbott Diagnostics and on an advisory board for Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Januzzi has disclosed receiving grant support from Novartis, Applied Therapeutics, and Innolife; consulting for Abbott Diagnostics, Janssen, Novartis, Quidel, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on endpoint committees or data safety monitoring boards for trials supported by Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, CVRx, Janssen, MyoKardia, and Takeda. Dr. Chew has reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca and Edwards Life Sciences. ACT-2 is sponsored by the National Medical and Health Research Council of Australia.

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

Finerenone, an investigational agent from a new drug class, just scored a second pivotal trial win after showing significant benefit for slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes in the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial with more than 5,700 patients.

Top-line results from FIGARO-DKD showed significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease endpoints in a placebo-controlled trial with about 7,400 patients with type 2 diabetes, reported Bayer, the company developing finerenone in statement released on May 10, 2021.

Based on the FIDELIO-DKD results, finerenone is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval as a treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. FIDELIO-DKD, in addition to the primary endpoint that focused on slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, had a secondary endpoint that assessed the combined incidence on treatment of cardiovascular death, or nonfatal episodes of stroke, MI, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results from the study published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that finerenone was safe and effective for both endpoints.

In the current study, FIGARO-DKD, run at more than 1,000 sites in 47 countries, these endpoints flipped. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and the secondary outcome was prevention of DKD progression.

Other than stating the results significantly fulfilled FIGARO-DKD’s primary endpoint of reducing the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease endpoints, the release gave no further outcome details. The release noted that the enrolled patient cohort in FIGARO-DKD included more patients with earlier-stage chronic kidney disease, compared with FIDELIO-DKD.

Finerenone is a first-in-class investigational nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). As an MRA it shares certain activities with the steroidal MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. But the absence of a steroidal structure means that finerenone does not cause steroidal adverse effects such as gynecomastia. Results in FIDELIO-DKD showed that finerenone caused more hyperkalemia than placebo, but the level of hyperkalemia that it causes relative to spironolactone or eplerenone remains uncertain.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Finerenone, an investigational agent from a new drug class, just scored a second pivotal trial win after showing significant benefit for slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes in the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial with more than 5,700 patients.

Top-line results from FIGARO-DKD showed significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease endpoints in a placebo-controlled trial with about 7,400 patients with type 2 diabetes, reported Bayer, the company developing finerenone in statement released on May 10, 2021.

Based on the FIDELIO-DKD results, finerenone is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval as a treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. FIDELIO-DKD, in addition to the primary endpoint that focused on slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, had a secondary endpoint that assessed the combined incidence on treatment of cardiovascular death, or nonfatal episodes of stroke, MI, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results from the study published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that finerenone was safe and effective for both endpoints.

In the current study, FIGARO-DKD, run at more than 1,000 sites in 47 countries, these endpoints flipped. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and the secondary outcome was prevention of DKD progression.

Other than stating the results significantly fulfilled FIGARO-DKD’s primary endpoint of reducing the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease endpoints, the release gave no further outcome details. The release noted that the enrolled patient cohort in FIGARO-DKD included more patients with earlier-stage chronic kidney disease, compared with FIDELIO-DKD.

Finerenone is a first-in-class investigational nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). As an MRA it shares certain activities with the steroidal MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. But the absence of a steroidal structure means that finerenone does not cause steroidal adverse effects such as gynecomastia. Results in FIDELIO-DKD showed that finerenone caused more hyperkalemia than placebo, but the level of hyperkalemia that it causes relative to spironolactone or eplerenone remains uncertain.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Finerenone, an investigational agent from a new drug class, just scored a second pivotal trial win after showing significant benefit for slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes in the FIDELIO-DKD pivotal trial with more than 5,700 patients.

Top-line results from FIGARO-DKD showed significant benefit for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death and nonfatal cardiovascular disease endpoints in a placebo-controlled trial with about 7,400 patients with type 2 diabetes, reported Bayer, the company developing finerenone in statement released on May 10, 2021.

Based on the FIDELIO-DKD results, finerenone is currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marketing approval as a treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. FIDELIO-DKD, in addition to the primary endpoint that focused on slowing progression of diabetic kidney disease, had a secondary endpoint that assessed the combined incidence on treatment of cardiovascular death, or nonfatal episodes of stroke, MI, or hospitalization for heart failure. Results from the study published in 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that finerenone was safe and effective for both endpoints.

In the current study, FIGARO-DKD, run at more than 1,000 sites in 47 countries, these endpoints flipped. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal cardiovascular disease events, and the secondary outcome was prevention of DKD progression.

Other than stating the results significantly fulfilled FIGARO-DKD’s primary endpoint of reducing the incidence of combined cardiovascular disease endpoints, the release gave no further outcome details. The release noted that the enrolled patient cohort in FIGARO-DKD included more patients with earlier-stage chronic kidney disease, compared with FIDELIO-DKD.

Finerenone is a first-in-class investigational nonsteroidal, selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). As an MRA it shares certain activities with the steroidal MRAs spironolactone and eplerenone. But the absence of a steroidal structure means that finerenone does not cause steroidal adverse effects such as gynecomastia. Results in FIDELIO-DKD showed that finerenone caused more hyperkalemia than placebo, but the level of hyperkalemia that it causes relative to spironolactone or eplerenone remains uncertain.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

Cardiothoracic surgeon J. Marvin Smith III, MD, had always thrived on a busy practice schedule, often performing 20-30 surgeries a week. A practicing surgeon for more than 40 years, Dr. Smith said he had no plans to slow down anytime soon.

But Dr. Smith said his career was derailed when leaders at Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio initiated a sudden peer review proceeding against him. The hospital system alleged certain surgeries performed by Dr. Smith had excessive mortality rates. When he proved the data inaccurate, Dr. Smith said administrators next claimed he was cognitively impaired and wasn’t safe to practice.

Dr. Smith has now been embroiled in a peer review dispute with the hospital system for more than 2 years and says the conflict has essentially forced him out of surgical practice. He believes the peer review was “malicious” and was really launched because of complaints he made about nurse staffing and other issues at the hospital.

“I think it is absolutely in bad faith and is disingenuous what they’ve told me along the way,” said Dr. Smith, 73. “It’s because I pointed out deficiencies in nursing care, and they want to get rid of me. It would be a lot easier for them if I had a contract and they could control me better. But the fact that I was independent, meant they had to resort to a malicious peer review to try and push me out.”

Dr. Smith had a peer review hearing with Methodist in March 2021, and in April, a panel found in Dr. Smith’s favor, according to Dr. Smith. The findings were sent to the hospital’s medical board for review, which issued a decision in early May.

Eric A. Pullen, an attorney for Dr. Smith, said he could not go into detail about the board’s decision for legal reasons, but that “the medical board’s decision did not completely resolve the matter, and Dr. Smith intends to exercise his procedural rights, which could include an appeal.”

Methodist Hospital Texsan and its parent company, Methodist Health System of San Antonio, did not respond to messages seeking comment about the case. Without hearing from the hospital system, its side is unknown and it is unclear if there is more to the story from Methodist’s view.

Malicious peer review – also called sham peer review – is defined as misusing the medical peer review process for malevolent purposes, such as to silence or to remove a physician. The problem is not new, but some experts, such as Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, say the practice has become more common in recent years, particularly against independent doctors.

Dr. Huntoon believes there is a nationwide trend at many hospitals to get rid of independent physicians and replace them with employed doctors, he said.

However, because most sham peer reviews go on behind closed doors, there are no data to pinpoint its prevalence or measure its growth.

“Independent physicians are basically being purged from medical staffs across the United States,” said Dr. Huntoon, who is chair of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons’ Committee to Combat Sham Peer Review. “The hospitals want more control over how physicians practice and who they refer to, and they do that by having employees.”

Anthony P. Weiss, MD, MBA, chief medical officer for Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center said it has not been his experience that independent physicians are being targeted in such a way. Dr. Weiss responded to an inquiry sent to the American Hospital Association for this story.

“As the authority for peer review rests with the organized medical staff (i.e., physicians), and not formally with the hospital per se, the peer review lever is not typically available as a management tool for hospital administration,” said Dr. Weiss, who is a former member of the AHA’s Committee on Clinical Leadership, but who was speaking on behalf of himself.

A spokesman for the AHA said the organization stands behinds Dr. Weiss’ comments.

Peer review remains a foundational aspect of overseeing the safety and appropriateness of healthcare provided by physicians, Dr. Weiss said. Peer review likely varies from hospital to hospital, he added, although the Healthcare Quality Improvement Act provides some level of guidance as does the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (section 9.4.1).

“In essence, both require that the evaluation be conducted in good faith with the intention to improve care, by physicians with adequate training and knowledge, using a process that is fair and inclusive of the physician under review,” he said. “I believe that most medical staffs abide by these ethical principles, but we have little data to confirm this supposition.”
 

Did hospital target doc for being vocal?

When members of Methodist’s medical staff first approached Dr. Smith with concerns about his surgery outcomes in November 2018, the physician says he was surprised, but that he was open to an assessment.

“They came to me and said they thought my numbers were bad, and I said: ‘Well my gosh, I certainly don’t want that to be the case. I need to see what numbers you are talking about,’ ” Dr. Smith recalled. “I’ve been president of the Bexar County Medical Society; I’ve been involved with standards and ethics for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Quality health care means a whole lot to me.”

The statistical information provided by hospital administrators indicated that Dr. Smith’s mortality rates for coronary artery surgery in 2018 were “excessive” and that his rates for aortic surgery were “unacceptable,” according to a lawsuit Dr. Smith filed against the hospital system. Dr. Smith, who is double boarded with the American Board of Surgery and the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, said his outcomes had never come into question in the past. Dr. Smith said the timing was suspicious to him, however, considering he had recently raised concerns with the hospital through letters about nursing performance, staffing, and compensation.

A peer review investigation was initiated. In the meantime, Dr. Smith agreed to intensivist consults on his postoperative patients and consults with the hospital’s “Heart Team” on all preoperative cardiac, valve, and aortic cases. A vocal critic of the Heart Team, Dr. Smith had long contended the entity provided no meaningful benefit to his patients in most cases and, rather, increased hospital stays and raised medical expenses. Despite his agreement, Dr. Smith was later asked to voluntarily stop performing surgeries at the hospital.

“I agreed, convinced that we’d get this all settled,” he said.

Another report issued by the hospital in 2019 also indicated elevated mortality rates associated with some of Smith’s surgeries, although the document differed from the first report, according to the lawsuit. Dr. Smith says he was ignored when he pointed out problems with the data, including a lack of appropriate risk stratification in the report, departure from Society of Thoracic Surgeons data rules, and improper inclusion of his cases in the denominator of the ratio when a comparison was made of his outcomes with those hospitalwide. A subsequent report from Methodist in March 2019 indicated Dr. Smith’s surgery outcomes were “within the expected parameters of performance,” according to court documents.

The surgery accusations were dropped, but the peer review proceeding against Dr. Smith wasn’t over. The hospital next requested that Dr. Smith undergo a competency evaluation.

“When they realized the data was bad, they then changed their argument in the peer review proceeding and essentially started to argue that Dr. Smith had some sort of cognitive disability that prevented him from continuing to practice,” said Mr. Pullen. “The way I look at it, when the initial basis for the peer review was proven false, the hospital found something else and some other reason to try to keep Dr. Smith from practicing.”

Thus began a lengthy disagreement about which entity would conduct the evaluation, who would pay, and the type of acceptable assessment. An evaluation by the hospital’s preferred organization resulted in a finding of mild cognitive impairment, Dr. Smith said. He hired his own experts who conducted separate evaluations, finding no impairment and no basis for the former evaluation’s conclusion.

“Literally, the determinant as to whether I was normal or below normal on their test was one point, which was associated with a finding that I didn’t draw a clock correctly,” Dr. Smith claimed. “The reviewer said my minute hand was a little too short and docked me a point. It was purely subjective. To me, the gold standard of whether you are learned in thoracic surgery is the American Board of Thoracic Surgery’s test. The board’s test shows my cognitive ability is entirely in keeping with my practice. That contrasts with the one point off I got for drawing a clock wrong in somebody’s estimation.”
 

Conflict leads to legal case

In September 2020, Dr. Smith filed a lawsuit against Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, alleging business disparagement by Methodist for allegedly publishing false and disparaging information about Dr. Smith and tortious interference with business relations. The latter claim stems from Methodist refusing to provide documents to other hospitals about the status of Dr. Smith’s privileges at Methodist, Mr. Pullen said.

Because Methodist refused to confirm his status, the renewal process for Baptist Health System could not be completed and Dr. Smith lost his privileges at Baptist Health System facilities, according to the lawsuit.

Notably, Dr. Smith’s legal challenge also asks the court to take a stance against alleged amendments by Methodist to its Unified Medical Staff Bylaws. The hospital allegedly proposed changes that would prevent physicians from seeking legal action against the hospital for malicious peer review, according to Dr. Smith’s lawsuit.

The amendments would make the peer review process itself the “sole and exclusive remedy with respect to any action or recommendation taken at the hospital affecting medical staff appointment and/or clinical privileges,” according to an excerpt of the proposed amendments included in Dr. Smith’s lawsuit. In addition, the changes would hold practitioners liable for lost revenues if the doctor initiates “any type of legal action challenging credentialing, privileging, or other medical peer review or professional review activity,” according to the lawsuit.

Dr. Smith’s lawsuit seeks a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws are “void as against public policy,” and a declaration that the proposed amendments to the bylaws cannot take away physicians’ statutory right to bring litigation against Methodist for malicious peer review.

“The proposed amendments have a tendency to and will injure the public good,” Dr. Smith argued in the lawsuit. “The proposed amendments allow Methodist to act with malice and in bad faith in conducting peer review proceedings and face no legal repercussions.”

Regardless of the final outcome of the peer review proceeding, Mr. Pullen said the harm Dr. Smith has already endured cannot be reversed.

“Even if comes out in his favor, the damage is already done,” he said. “It will not remedy the damage Dr. Smith has incurred.”
 

Fighting sham peer review is difficult

Battling a malicious peer review has long been an uphill battle for physicians, according to Dr. Huntoon. That’s because the Health Care Quality Improvement Act (HCQIA), a federal law passed in 1986, provides near absolute immunity to hospitals and peer reviewers in legal disputes.

The HCQIA was created by Congress to extend immunity to good-faith peer review of doctors and to increase overall participation in peer review by removing fear of litigation. However, the act has also enabled abuse of peer review by shielding bad-faith reviewers from accountability, said Dr. Huntoon.

“The Health Care Quality Improvement Act presumes that what the hospital did was warranted and reasonable and shifts the burden to the physician to prove his innocence by a preponderance of evidence,” he said. “That’s an entirely foreign concept to most people who think a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Here, it’s the exact opposite.”

The HCQIA has been challenged numerous times over the years and tested at the appellate level, but continues to survive and remain settled law, added Richard B. Willner, DPM, founder and director of the Center for Peer Review Justice, which assists and counsels physicians about sham peer review.

In 2011, former Rep. Joe Heck, DO, (R-Nev.) introduced a bill that would have amended the HCQIA to prohibit a professional review entity from submitting a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) while the doctor was still under investigation and before the doctor was afforded adequate notice and a hearing. Although the measure had 16 cosponsors and plenty of support from the physician community, it failed.

In addition to a heavy legal burden, physicians who experience malicious peer reviews also face ramifications from being reported to the NPDB. Peer review organizations are required to report certain negative actions or findings to the NPDB.

“A databank entry is a scarlet letter on your forehead,” Dr. Willner said. “The rules at a lot of institutions are not to take anyone who has been databanked, rightfully or wrongfully. And what is the evidence necessary to databank you? None. There’s no evidence needed to databank somebody.”

Despite the bleak landscape, experts say progress has been made on a case-by-case basis by physicians who have succeeded in fighting back against questionable peer reviews in recent years.

In January 2020, Indiana ob.gyn. Rebecca Denman, MD, prevailed in her defamation lawsuit against St Vincent Carmel Hospital and St Vincent Carmel Medical Group, winning $4.75 million in damages. Dr. Denman alleged administrators failed to conduct a proper peer review investigation after a false allegation by a nurse that she was under the influence while on the job.

Indianapolis attorney Kathleen A. DeLaney, who represented Dr. Denman, said hospital leaders misled Dr. Denman into believing a peer review had occurred when no formal peer review hearing or proceeding took place.

“The CMO of the medical group claimed that he performed a peer review ‘screening,’ but he never informed the other members of the peer review executive committee of the matter until after he had placed Dr. Denman on administrative leave,” Ms. DeLaney said. “He also neglected to tell the peer review executive committee that the substance abuse policy had not been followed, or that Dr. Denman had not been tested for alcohol use – due to the 12-hour delay in report.”

Dr. Denman was ultimately required to undergo an alcohol abuse evaluation, enter a treatment program, and sign a 5-year monitoring contract with the Indiana State Medical Association as a condition of her employment, according to the lawsuit. She claimed repercussions from the false allegation resulted in lost compensation, out-of-pocket expenses, emotional distress, and damage to her professional reputation.

She sued the hospital in July 2018, alleging fraud, defamation, tortious interference with an employment relationship, and negligent misrepresentation. After a 4-day trial, jurors found in her favor, awarding Dr. Denman $2 million for her defamation claims, $2 million for her claims of fraud and constructive fraud, $500,000 for her claim of tortious interference with an employment relationship, and $250,000 for her claim of negligent misrepresentation.

A hospital spokesperson said Ascension St Vincent is pursuing an appeal, and that it looks “forward to the opportunity to bring this matter before the Indiana Court of Appeals in June.”

In another case, South Dakota surgeon Linda Miller, MD, was awarded $1.1 million in 2017 after a federal jury found Huron Regional Medical Center breached her contract and violated her due process rights. Dr. Miller became the subject of a peer review at Huron Regional Medical Center when the hospital began analyzing some of her surgery outcomes.

Ken Barker, an attorney for Dr. Miller, said he feels it became evident at trial that the campaign to force Dr. Miller to either resign or lose her privileges was led by the lay board of directors of the hospital and upper-level administration at the hospital.

“They began the process by ordering an unprecedented 90-day review of her medical charts, looking for errors in the medical care she provided patients,” he said. “They could find nothing, so they did a second 90-day review, waiting for a patient’s ‘bad outcome.’ As any general surgeon will say, a ‘bad outcome’ is inevitable. And so it was. Upon that occurrence, they had a medical review committee review the patient’s chart and use it as an excuse to force her to reduce her privileges. Unbeknown to Dr. Miller, an external review had been conducted on another patient’s chart, in which the external review found her care above the standards and, in some measure, ‘exemplary.’ ”

Dr. Miller was eventually pressured to resign, according to her claim. Because of reports made to the NPDB by the medical center, including a patient complication that was allegedly falsified by the hospital, Dr. Miller said she was unable to find work as a general surgeon and went to work as a wound care doctor. At trial, jurors awarded Dr. Miller $586,617 in lost wages, $343,640 for lost future earning capacity, and $250,000 for mental anguish. (The mental anguish award was subsequently struck by a district court.)

Attorneys for Huron Regional Medical Center argued the jury improperly awarded damages and requested a new trial, which was denied by an appeals court.

In the end, the evidence came to light and the jury’s verdict spoke loudly that the hospital had taken unfair advantage of Dr. Miller, Mr. Barker said. But he emphasized that such cases often end differently.

“There are a handful of cases in which physicians like Dr. Miller have challenged the system and won,” he said. “In most cases, however, it is a ‘David vs. Goliath’ scenario where the giant prevails.”
 

What to do if faced with malicious peer review

An important step when doctors encounter a peer review that they believe is malicious is to consult with an experienced attorney as early as possible, Dr. Huntoon said. “Not all attorneys who set themselves out to be health law attorneys necessarily have knowledge and expertise in sham peer review. And before such a thing happens, I always encourage physicians to read their medical staff bylaws. That’s where everything is set forth, [such as] the corrective action section that tells how peer review is to take place.”

Mr. Barker added that documentation is also key in the event of a potential malicious peer review.

“When a physician senses [the] administration has targeted them, they should start documenting their conversations and actions very carefully, and if possible, recruit another ‘observer’ who can provide a third-party perspective, if necessary,” Mr. Barker said.

Dr. Huntoon recently wrote an article with advice about preparedness and defense of sham peer reviews. The guidance includes that physicians educate themselves about the tactics used by some hospitals to conduct sham peer reviews and the factors that place doctors more at risk. Factors that may raise a doctor’s danger of being targeted include being in solo practice or a small group, being new on staff, or being an older physician approaching retirement as some bad-actor hospitals may view older physicians as being less likely to fight back, said Dr. Huntoon.

Doctors should also keep detailed records and a timeline in the event of a malicious peer review and insist that an independent court reporter record all peer review hearings, even if that means the physician has to pay for the reporter him or herself, according to the guidance. An independent record is invaluable should the physician ultimately issue a future legal challenge against the hospital.

Mr. Willner encourages physicians to call the Center for Peer Review Justice hotline at (504) 621-1670 or visit the website for help with peer review and NPDB issues.

As for Dr. Smith, his days are much quieter and slower today, compared with the active practice he was accustomed to for more than half his life. He misses the fast pace, the patients, and the work that always brought him great joy.

“I hope to get back to doing surgeries eventually,” he said. “I graduated medical school in 1972. Practicing surgery has been my whole life and my career. They have taken my identity and my livelihood away from me based on false numbers and false premises. I want it back.”

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

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The obesity epidemic in the United States may be slowing improvements in cancer mortality, according to a new analysis of over 50 million cancer and heart disease deaths.

“By integrating 20 years of cancer mortality data, we demonstrated that trends in obesity-associated cancer mortality showed signs of recent deceleration, consistent with recent findings for heart disease mortality,” Christy L. Avery, PhD, and associates wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Improvements in mortality related to heart disease slowed after 2011, a phenomenon that has been associated with rising obesity rates. The age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) declined at an average of 3.8 deaths per 100,000 persons from 1999 to 2011 but only 0.7 deaths per 100,000 from 2011 to 2018, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER).

To understand trends in cancer mortality and their possible connection with obesity, data for 1999-2018 from the WONDER database were divided into obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated categories and compared with heart disease mortality, they explained. The database included more than 50 million deaths that matched inclusion criteria.

The analysis showed there was difference between obesity-associated and non–obesity-associated cancers that was obscured when all cancer deaths were considered together. The average annual change in AAMR for obesity-associated cancers slowed from –1.19 deaths per 100,000 in 1999-2011 to –0.83 in 2011-2018, Dr. Avery and associates reported.

For non–obesity-associated cancers, the annual change in AAMR increased from –1.62 per 100,000 for 1999-2011 to –2.29 for 2011-2018, following the trend for all cancers: –1.48 per 100,000 during 1999-2011 and –1.77 in 2011-2018, they said.

“The largest mortality decreases were observed for melanoma of the skin and lung cancer, two cancers not associated with obesity. For obesity-associated cancers, stable or increasing mortality rates have been observed for liver and pancreatic cancer among both men and women as well as for uterine cancer among women,” the investigators wrote.

Demographically, however, the slowing improvement in mortality for obesity-associated cancers did not follow the trend for heart disease. The deceleration for cancer was more pronounced for women and for non-Hispanic Whites and not seen at all in non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. “For heart disease, evidence of a deceleration was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity,” they said.

There are “longstanding disparities in obesity” among various populations in the United States, and the recent trend of obesity occurring earlier in life may be having an effect. “Whether the findings of decelerating mortality rates potentially signal a changing profile of cancer and heart disease mortality as the consequences of the obesity epidemic are realized remains to be seen,” they concluded.

The investigators reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study, but no other disclosures were reported.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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

Scientists have proposed a simple new definition for “metabolically healthy obesity” to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and total mortality.

The team – led by Anika Zembic, MPH, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany – performed an assessment of anthropometric and metabolic risk factors as well as mortality data from two cohorts that “yielded a simple definition to categorize participants with obesity as metabolically healthy or unhealthy.”

They defined “metabolically healthy” as systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and no use of blood pressure-lowering medication; waist-to-hip ratio <0.95 (in women) and <1.03 (in men); and no prevalent type 2 diabetes.

Based on this new definition, 42% of participants in the third U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES-III) and 19% of participants in the UK Biobank study had metabolically healthy obesity and did not have an increased risk for CVD mortality and total mortality compared with individuals with metabolically healthy normal weight.  

“People with a phenotype defined as metabolically unhealthy using this definition had significantly higher hazard ratios for [CVD] mortality and total mortality irrespective of body mass index category, and people with phenotypes defined as having metabolically healthy obesity displayed no increased risk,” the researchers noted in their article, published May 7 in JAMA Network Open.

“Our new definition may be important not only to stratify risk of mortality in people with obesity, but also in people with overweight and normal weight,” they concluded.
 

Thirty different definitions of ‘metabolically healthy obesity’

“To date, there is no universally accepted standard for defining [metabolically healthy obesity] and more than 30 different definitions have been used to operationalize the phenotypes in studies,” which may explain the “continued unresolved debate” about outcomes in patients with metabolically unhealthy obesity, Ayana K. April-Sanders, PhD, and Carlos J. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, from Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, wrote in an accompanying commentary.

The current study, they noted, suggests that waist-to-hip ratio is a better measure of central adiposity than waist circumference, and that the effect of dyslipidemia on CVD mortality may be weaker among individuals with obesity.

However, the findings may not be generalizable to other CVD outcomes, they cautioned.

And importantly, some individuals with metabolically healthy obesity will likely transition to unhealthy obesity over time due to weight gain, aging, and lack of physical activity.

Therefore, “the present study provides a prototype of how that definition can be derived, but more rigorous tests and evidence using similar techniques are needed, particularly in prospective studies,” according to Dr. April-Sanders and Dr. Rodriguez.

They call for more research to establish a standardized definition of metabolically healthy obesity and then, using that definition, to determine the prevalence of healthy and unhealthy obesity and identify factors that preserve healthy obesity. 
 

Definition developed from NHANES cohort, validated in UK biobank

Ms. Zembic and colleagues explained that previous definitions for metabolically healthy obesity were mainly based on the absence of either metabolic syndrome or insulin resistance, but some individuals with obesity but without metabolic disease still have increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

To develop a more precise definition of metabolically healthy obesity, the researchers analyzed data from 12,341 individuals in the United States who participated in NHANES-III, conducted between 1988 and 1994. The individuals were a mean age of 42 and 51% were women, and they were followed for an average of 14.5 years.  

The researchers validated this definition using data from 374,079 individuals in the population-based UK Biobank cohort who were assessed in 2006 to 2010. Those individuals were a mean age of 56 and 55% were women, and they were followed for a mean of 7.8 years.

The combination of systolic blood pressure and waist-to-hip ratio had the strongest association with CVD mortality and total mortality, and the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was also associated with greater risk.

Regardless of BMI, all groups of metabolically unhealthy individuals had increased risks of CVD mortality and total mortality.

The study and some of the researchers were supported by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.  

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Editor in Chief of this news organization Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and professor of molecular medicine, has been closely following COVID-19 data since the pandemic began. He spoke with writer Miriam E. Tucker about the latest on SARS-CoV-2 variants and their impact on vaccine efficacy. The conversation serves as a follow-up to his April 13, 2021, New York Times opinion piece, in which he advised readers that “all variants are innocent until proven guilty.”

You have expressed overall confidence in the efficacy of the vaccines thus far despite the emergence of variants, with some caveats. How do you see the current situation?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has designated five “variants of concern,” but only three of them are real concerns – B.1.1.7, first detected in the United Kingdom; P.1, in Brazil and Japan; and B.1.351, in South Africa. Yet, all three are susceptible to our current vaccines.

The U.K. B.1.1.7 is the worst variant of all because it’s hypertransmissible, so I call it a “superspreader strain.” It also causes more severe illness independent of the spread, so it’s a double whammy. It’s clear that it also causes more deaths. The only arguable point is whether it’s 30% or 50% more deaths, but regardless, it’s more lethal and more transmissible.

The B.1.1.7 is going to be the dominant strain worldwide. It could develop new mutations within it that could come back to haunt us. We must keep watch.

But for now, it’s fully responsive to all the vaccines, which is great because if we didn’t have them, we wouldn’t have gotten through this U.S. pandemic like we have, and neither would Israel and the United Kingdom and other countries that have been able to get out of the crisis. We met the enemy and put it in check.

As for the South Africa variant of concern, B.1.351, we just got some encouraging news showing that it›s very responsive to the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine in large numbers of people. The study was conducted in Qatar following that country’s mass immunization campaign in which a total of 385,853 people had received at least one vaccine dose and 265,410 had completed the two doses as of March 31, 2021.

At 2 weeks past the second dose, the vaccine was 75% effective at preventing any documented infection with the B.1.351 variant and 89.5% effective against B.1.1.7. The vaccine’s effectiveness against severe, critical, or fatal COVID-19 was greater than 97.4% for all circulating strains in Qatar, where B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 are most prominent.

We also know that B.1.351 is very responsive to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and the Novavax [vaccine in development] to a lesser degree. It is the most immune-evading variant we’ve seen thus far, with the highest likelihood of providing some vaccine resistance, yet not enough to interfere with vaccination campaigns. So that’s great news.

The caveats here are that you definitely need two doses of the mRNA vaccines to combat the B.1.351 variant. Also, the AstraZeneca vaccine failed to prevent it in South Africa. However, that study was hard to judge because it was underpowered for number of people with mild infections. So, it didn’t look as if it had any efficacy, but maybe it would if tested in a real trial.

The P.1 (Brazil) variant is the second-highest concern after B.1.1.7 because it’s the only one in the United States that’s still headed up. It seems to be competing a bit with B.1.1.7 here. We know it was associated with the crisis in Brazil, in Chile, and some other South American countries. It has some immune escape, but not as bad as B.1.351. It also appears to have somewhat greater transmissibility but not as much as B.1.1.7.

With P.1, we just don’t know enough yet. It was difficult to assess in Brazil because they were in the midst of a catastrophe – like India is now – and you don’t know how much of it is dragged by the catastrophe vs driving it.

We have to respond to P.1 carefully. There are some good data that it does respond to the Chinese vaccine Sinovac and the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it appears to respond to the others as well, based on serum studies. So it doesn’t look like vaccines will be the worry with this variant. Rather, it could be competing with B.1.1.7 and could lead to breakthrough infections in vaccinated people or reinfections in unvaccinated people who had COVID-19. We need several more weeks to sort it out.

Although the B.1.427 and B.1.429 variants initially seen in California remain on the CDC’s concern list, I’m not worried about them.
 

You mentioned the current COVID-19 crisis in India, where a new variant has been described as a “double mutant,” but on Twitter you called it a “scariant.” Why?

First of all, the B.1.617 variant isn’t a double mutant. It has 15 mutations. It’s a stupid term, focusing on two mutations which largely have been put aside as to concern. One of them is the L452R, which is the same as one of the California variants, and that hasn’t proved to be particularly serious or concerning. The other is the 484Q, and it’s not clear whether that has any function.

The B.1.617 is not the driver of the catastrophe in India. It may be contributing a small amount, but it has been overhyped as the double mutant that’s causing it all. Adding to that are what I call “scariant” headlines here in the United States when a few cases of that variant have been seen.

I coined the term scariant in early February because it was a pretty clear trend. People don’t know what variants are. They know a little bit about mutations but not variants, and they’re scared. A few variants are concerning, but we keep learning more and more things to decrease the concern. That’s why I wrote the New York Times op-ed, to try to provide some reassurance, since there’s such paranoia.
 

Do you think booster vaccinations will be necessary? If so, will those be of the original vaccines or new ones that incorporate the variants?

As we go forward, there’s still potential for new variants that we haven’t seen yet that combine the worst of all features – transmissibility and immune evasion – especially since we have a world where COVID-19 is unchecked. So, we’re not out of it yet, but at least for the moment, we have vaccines that are capable of protecting against all variants.

In most people, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 is very durable and strong and may well last for years. With the most closely related SARS-CoV-1, people still had immune responses up to 18 years later. However, some people will have less robust vaccine responses, including the elderly and the immunocompromised. If they don’t have great responses to the vaccine to start with, over time they’re likely to become more vulnerable, especially if they’re exposed to the variants with some degree of immune evasion.

I think we need to study these individuals post vaccination. A lot of people fit into those categories, including seniors, people being treated for cancer or autoimmune conditions, or post organ transplant. We could set up a prospective study to see whether they develop symptomatic COVID-19 and if so, from what – the original strain, B.1.1.7, or the newer variants.

That’s where I think booster shots may be needed. They may not be necessary across the board, but perhaps just in these special subgroups.

All of the current vaccines can be tweaked to include new variants, but the need for that is uncertain as of now. Moderna is working on a so-called bivalent vaccine that includes the original SARS-CoV-2 strain plus the B.1.351 variant, but it isn’t clear that that’s going to be necessary.

Currently, at least 200 COVID-19 vaccines are in development. There will be vaccines you can inhale, room temperature mRNA vaccines, and potentially even oral vaccines.

In the near future, Novavax is close, and there will likely be a two-dose Johnson & Johnson version that has the same potency as the mRNA vaccines. There are a lot of moving parts here.

There may be a step down in efficacy from mRNA to the others, though, and that shouldn’t be discounted. All of the available vaccines so far protect very well against severe disease and death, but some are less effective against mild to moderate infections, which may then lead to long COVID. We don’t yet know whether those who get mild infection post vaccination can still get long COVID.
 

What do you think it will take to achieve herd immunity?

I prefer the term “containment.” It’s quantitative. If you get to an infection rate of less than 1 in 100,000 people, as they’ve done in Israel, with 0.8 per 100,000, then you have the virus in check, and there will be very little spread when it’s at that controlled rate, with no outbreaks. The United States is currently at about 15 per 100,000. California is at 4. That still has to get lower.

It will be a challenge to get to President Biden’s goal of having 70% of U.S. adults given at least one dose by July 4. We’re now at about 57%. To get that next 13% of adults is going to take an all-out effort: mobile units, going to homes, making it ultraconvenient, education for people with safety concerns, incentivization, and days off.

We also need to get employers, universities, and health systems to get to the mandatory level. We haven’t done that yet. Some universities have mandated it for students, faculty, and staff. We need it in more health care systems. Right now, we only have a couple. We mandate flu shots, and flu is nothing, compared with COVID-19. And the COVID-19 vaccine is far more efficacious – flu shots are 40% efficacious, while these are 95%. COVID-19 is a tenfold more lethal and serious disease, and much more spreadable.

People are using the lack of full licensure by the Food and Drug Administration – as opposed to emergency use authorization – as an excuse not to get vaccinated. A biologics license application takes time to approve. Meanwhile, we have hundreds of millions of doses that have been well tolerated and incredibly effective.

Another aspect to consider regarding containment is that about 110 million Americans have already had COVID-19, even though only about 30 million cases have been confirmed. Most of these people have immune protection, although it’s not as good as if they have one vaccine dose. But they have enough protection to be part of the story here of the wall against COVID-19 and will help us get through this.

That’s a silver lining of having an unchecked epidemic for the entire year of 2020. The good part is that’s helping to get us to achieve an incredible level of containment when we haven’t even been close. Right now, we’re as good as the country has been in the pandemic, but we still have a long gap to get down to that 1 per 100,000. That’s what we should be working toward, and we can get there.

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

Patients who suffer a stroke during hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a dismal prognosis, with more than half dying during the index hospitalization and two-thirds within the first year, a new study shows.

The study – the first to evaluate stroke as an IE-related complication following TAVR in a large multicenter cohort – is published in the May 11 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors, led by David del Val, MD, Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Quebec City, explain that IE after TAVR is a rare but serious complication associated with a high mortality rate. Neurologic events, especially stroke, remain one of the most common and potentially disabling IE-related complications, but until now, no study has attempted to evaluate the predictors of stroke and outcomes in patients with IE following TAVR.

For the current study, the authors analyzed data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry, including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries.

Patients who experienced a stroke during IE admission were compared with patients who did not have a stroke.

Results showed that 57 patients (10%) had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in the causative microorganism between groups. Stroke patients had higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia.

Factors associated with a higher risk for stroke during the index IE hospitalization included stroke before IE, moderate or higher residual aortic regurgitation after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size greater than 8 mm.

The stroke rate was 3.1% in patients with none of these risk factors; 6.1% with one risk factor; 13.1% with two risk factors; 28.9% with three risk factors, and 60% with four risk factors.

“The presence of such factors (particularly in combination) may be considered for determining an earlier and more aggressive (medical or surgical) treatment in these patients,” the researchers say.

IE patients with stroke had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%).

Surgery rates were low (25%) even in the presence of stroke and failed to improve outcomes in this population.

Noting that consensus guidelines for managing patients with IE recommend surgery along with antibiotic treatment for patients developing systemic embolism, particularly stroke, the researchers say their findings suggest that such surgery recommendations may not be extrapolated to TAVR-IE patients, and specific guidelines are warranted for this particular population.

Furthermore, the possibility of early surgery in those patients with factors increasing the risk for stroke should be evaluated in future studies.

The authors note that TAVR has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis and is currently moving toward less complex and younger patients with lower surgical risk. Despite the relatively low incidence of IE after TAVR, the number of procedures is expected to grow exponentially, increasing the number of patients at risk of developing this life-threatening complication. Therefore, detailed knowledge of this disease and its complications is essential to improve outcomes.

They point out that the 10% rate of stroke found in this study is substantially lower, compared with the largest surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis registries, but they suggest that the unique clinical profile of TAVR patients may lead to an underdiagnosis of stroke, with a high proportion of elderly patients who more frequently present with nonspecific symptoms.

They conclude that “IE post-TAVR is associated with a poor prognosis with high in-hospital and late mortality rates. Our study reveals that patients with IE after TAVR complicated by stroke showed an even worse prognosis.”

“The progressive implementation of advanced imaging modalities for early IE diagnosis, especially nuclear imaging, may translate into a better prognosis in coming years. Close attention should be paid to early recognition of stroke-associated factors to improve clinical outcomes,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Vuyisile Nkomo, MD, Daniel DeSimone, MD, and William Miranda, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., say the current study “highlights the devastating consequences of IE after TAVR and the even worse consequences when IE was associated with stroke.”

This points to the critical importance of efforts to prevent IE with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis and addressing potential sources of infection (for example, dental screening) before invasive cardiac procedures.

“Patient education is critical in regard to recognizing early signs and symptoms of IE. In particular, patients must be informed to obtain blood cultures with any episode of fever, as identification of bacteremia is critical in the diagnosis of IE,” the editorialists comment.  

Endocarditis should also be suspected in afebrile patients with increasing transcatheter heart valve gradients or new or worsening regurgitation, they state.

Multimodality imaging is important for the early diagnosis of IE to facilitate prompt antibiotic treatment and potentially decrease the risk for IE complications, especially systemic embolization, they add.

“Despite the unequivocal advances in the safety and periprocedural complications of TAVR, IE with and without stroke in this TAVR population remains a dreadful complication,” they conclude.

Dr. Del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who suffer a stroke during hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a dismal prognosis, with more than half dying during the index hospitalization and two-thirds within the first year, a new study shows.

The study – the first to evaluate stroke as an IE-related complication following TAVR in a large multicenter cohort – is published in the May 11 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors, led by David del Val, MD, Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Quebec City, explain that IE after TAVR is a rare but serious complication associated with a high mortality rate. Neurologic events, especially stroke, remain one of the most common and potentially disabling IE-related complications, but until now, no study has attempted to evaluate the predictors of stroke and outcomes in patients with IE following TAVR.

For the current study, the authors analyzed data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry, including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries.

Patients who experienced a stroke during IE admission were compared with patients who did not have a stroke.

Results showed that 57 patients (10%) had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in the causative microorganism between groups. Stroke patients had higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia.

Factors associated with a higher risk for stroke during the index IE hospitalization included stroke before IE, moderate or higher residual aortic regurgitation after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size greater than 8 mm.

The stroke rate was 3.1% in patients with none of these risk factors; 6.1% with one risk factor; 13.1% with two risk factors; 28.9% with three risk factors, and 60% with four risk factors.

“The presence of such factors (particularly in combination) may be considered for determining an earlier and more aggressive (medical or surgical) treatment in these patients,” the researchers say.

IE patients with stroke had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%).

Surgery rates were low (25%) even in the presence of stroke and failed to improve outcomes in this population.

Noting that consensus guidelines for managing patients with IE recommend surgery along with antibiotic treatment for patients developing systemic embolism, particularly stroke, the researchers say their findings suggest that such surgery recommendations may not be extrapolated to TAVR-IE patients, and specific guidelines are warranted for this particular population.

Furthermore, the possibility of early surgery in those patients with factors increasing the risk for stroke should be evaluated in future studies.

The authors note that TAVR has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis and is currently moving toward less complex and younger patients with lower surgical risk. Despite the relatively low incidence of IE after TAVR, the number of procedures is expected to grow exponentially, increasing the number of patients at risk of developing this life-threatening complication. Therefore, detailed knowledge of this disease and its complications is essential to improve outcomes.

They point out that the 10% rate of stroke found in this study is substantially lower, compared with the largest surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis registries, but they suggest that the unique clinical profile of TAVR patients may lead to an underdiagnosis of stroke, with a high proportion of elderly patients who more frequently present with nonspecific symptoms.

They conclude that “IE post-TAVR is associated with a poor prognosis with high in-hospital and late mortality rates. Our study reveals that patients with IE after TAVR complicated by stroke showed an even worse prognosis.”

“The progressive implementation of advanced imaging modalities for early IE diagnosis, especially nuclear imaging, may translate into a better prognosis in coming years. Close attention should be paid to early recognition of stroke-associated factors to improve clinical outcomes,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Vuyisile Nkomo, MD, Daniel DeSimone, MD, and William Miranda, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., say the current study “highlights the devastating consequences of IE after TAVR and the even worse consequences when IE was associated with stroke.”

This points to the critical importance of efforts to prevent IE with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis and addressing potential sources of infection (for example, dental screening) before invasive cardiac procedures.

“Patient education is critical in regard to recognizing early signs and symptoms of IE. In particular, patients must be informed to obtain blood cultures with any episode of fever, as identification of bacteremia is critical in the diagnosis of IE,” the editorialists comment.  

Endocarditis should also be suspected in afebrile patients with increasing transcatheter heart valve gradients or new or worsening regurgitation, they state.

Multimodality imaging is important for the early diagnosis of IE to facilitate prompt antibiotic treatment and potentially decrease the risk for IE complications, especially systemic embolization, they add.

“Despite the unequivocal advances in the safety and periprocedural complications of TAVR, IE with and without stroke in this TAVR population remains a dreadful complication,” they conclude.

Dr. Del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who suffer a stroke during hospitalization for infective endocarditis (IE) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a dismal prognosis, with more than half dying during the index hospitalization and two-thirds within the first year, a new study shows.

The study – the first to evaluate stroke as an IE-related complication following TAVR in a large multicenter cohort – is published in the May 11 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The authors, led by David del Val, MD, Quebec Heart & Lung Institute, Quebec City, explain that IE after TAVR is a rare but serious complication associated with a high mortality rate. Neurologic events, especially stroke, remain one of the most common and potentially disabling IE-related complications, but until now, no study has attempted to evaluate the predictors of stroke and outcomes in patients with IE following TAVR.

For the current study, the authors analyzed data from the Infectious Endocarditis after TAVR International Registry, including 569 patients who developed definite IE following TAVR from 59 centers in 11 countries.

Patients who experienced a stroke during IE admission were compared with patients who did not have a stroke.

Results showed that 57 patients (10%) had a stroke during IE hospitalization, with no differences in the causative microorganism between groups. Stroke patients had higher rates of acute renal failure, systemic embolization, and persistent bacteremia.

Factors associated with a higher risk for stroke during the index IE hospitalization included stroke before IE, moderate or higher residual aortic regurgitation after TAVR, balloon-expandable valves, IE within 30 days after TAVR, and vegetation size greater than 8 mm.

The stroke rate was 3.1% in patients with none of these risk factors; 6.1% with one risk factor; 13.1% with two risk factors; 28.9% with three risk factors, and 60% with four risk factors.

“The presence of such factors (particularly in combination) may be considered for determining an earlier and more aggressive (medical or surgical) treatment in these patients,” the researchers say.

IE patients with stroke had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (54.4% vs. 28.7%) and overall mortality at 1 year (66.3% vs. 45.6%).

Surgery rates were low (25%) even in the presence of stroke and failed to improve outcomes in this population.

Noting that consensus guidelines for managing patients with IE recommend surgery along with antibiotic treatment for patients developing systemic embolism, particularly stroke, the researchers say their findings suggest that such surgery recommendations may not be extrapolated to TAVR-IE patients, and specific guidelines are warranted for this particular population.

Furthermore, the possibility of early surgery in those patients with factors increasing the risk for stroke should be evaluated in future studies.

The authors note that TAVR has revolutionized the treatment of aortic stenosis and is currently moving toward less complex and younger patients with lower surgical risk. Despite the relatively low incidence of IE after TAVR, the number of procedures is expected to grow exponentially, increasing the number of patients at risk of developing this life-threatening complication. Therefore, detailed knowledge of this disease and its complications is essential to improve outcomes.

They point out that the 10% rate of stroke found in this study is substantially lower, compared with the largest surgical prosthetic-valve infective endocarditis registries, but they suggest that the unique clinical profile of TAVR patients may lead to an underdiagnosis of stroke, with a high proportion of elderly patients who more frequently present with nonspecific symptoms.

They conclude that “IE post-TAVR is associated with a poor prognosis with high in-hospital and late mortality rates. Our study reveals that patients with IE after TAVR complicated by stroke showed an even worse prognosis.”

“The progressive implementation of advanced imaging modalities for early IE diagnosis, especially nuclear imaging, may translate into a better prognosis in coming years. Close attention should be paid to early recognition of stroke-associated factors to improve clinical outcomes,” they add.

In an accompanying editorial, Vuyisile Nkomo, MD, Daniel DeSimone, MD, and William Miranda, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., say the current study “highlights the devastating consequences of IE after TAVR and the even worse consequences when IE was associated with stroke.”

This points to the critical importance of efforts to prevent IE with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis and addressing potential sources of infection (for example, dental screening) before invasive cardiac procedures.

“Patient education is critical in regard to recognizing early signs and symptoms of IE. In particular, patients must be informed to obtain blood cultures with any episode of fever, as identification of bacteremia is critical in the diagnosis of IE,” the editorialists comment.  

Endocarditis should also be suspected in afebrile patients with increasing transcatheter heart valve gradients or new or worsening regurgitation, they state.

Multimodality imaging is important for the early diagnosis of IE to facilitate prompt antibiotic treatment and potentially decrease the risk for IE complications, especially systemic embolization, they add.

“Despite the unequivocal advances in the safety and periprocedural complications of TAVR, IE with and without stroke in this TAVR population remains a dreadful complication,” they conclude.

Dr. Del Val was supported by a research grant from the Fundación Alfonso Martin Escudero. The editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The newly updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions and endpoints proposed for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) research aim to add more granularity and a patient focus to a rapidly evolving field, the authors say.

Work began in 2016 to update definitions in the document to be more contemporary, as TAVR matured over the last 10 years to include younger, lower-risk patients and began moving to long-term outcomes, lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, said in an interview.

“The main change in VARC-3 is really that we tried to define not only procedural outcome, both for TAVR and aortic valve replacement performed by surgery, but also more the long-term outcomes mainly based on the patient – so quality of life, bioprosthetic valve failure, how do we define a valve failure, and also the need for rehospitalization,” he said.

However, soon after the VARC-3 document was published on April 19, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and Journal of the American College of Cardiology, surgeons took to social media to highlight the writing committee’s financial ties to industry and to suggest some definitions were shaped to favor transcatheter approaches.

“There’s no doubt that the coauthors who participated in these guidelines are experts; nobody would argue about that but what we can argue, and I’m 100% sure about, is that we have experts outside the payroll of industry who are excellent and can be part of this guideline drafting in an unbiased way,” Victor Dayan, MD, adjunct professor of cardiac surgery, National Institute of Cardiac Surgery, Montevideo, Uruguay, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Physicians recommends guideline committee members with moderate- or high-level conflicts of interest recuse themselves from authorship, he noted that one author has received more than $2 million in fees from industry in the past 4-5 years.

In all, 20 of 23 authors were involved in PARTNER, SURTAVI, and PORTICO, and several also write clinical guidelines for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. “So we have the same authors that are judge, jury, and attorney for these issues,” Dr. Dayan said.

In a comment, J. Rafael Sádaba, MD, PhD, interim secretary general for the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, pointed out that only three committee members are surgeons and that author disclosures took up nearly a full page of the document. “Surely they would be able to find very capable physicians with far less conflicts of interest.”

Dr. Sádaba said the question to him is why professional societies like ACC and AHA don’t define the endpoints for the clinical trials that will inform their guidelines.

“One could say these people are there because they’re good scientists, trialists, but one at least has to ask why is this happening. Why are these people setting the rules for the trials they’re running?” said Dr. Sádaba, of the Royal Navarre Hospital, Pamplona, Spain.

Dr. Généreux dismissed the Twitter comments as coming from a handful of people who engage in conspiracy theories. The VARC-3 document, he said, was created with input from 75 experts, including Food and Drug Administration officials, and the final document was reviewed by the FDA and underwent rigorous peer review prior to publication.

“The question is: do you believe there is bias when people are involved in studies driven by the industry? Well, this is where we derive our science in this field,” he said. “We are very transparent and disclose our conflicts of interest [COI].”

Commenting further, Dr. Généreux added, “this was a very well-balanced group and to imply that because we work with industry, we don’t have the best interest of the patient in mind is wrong.”

Editor in chief of the EHJ, Filippo Crea, MD, PhD, Catholic University, Rome, said in an comment that “it is not surprising that most of the authors have experience in TAVR trials. All of the authors have carefully disclosed their COIs.”

He noted that the EHJ and JACC copublished the first VARC consensus in 2011, VARC-2 1 year later, and that VARC-3 was reviewed by four external reviewers and two editors and was accepted for publication after two revisions.

Asked about a shot on social media that the EHJ had long ago “sold its soul” to be the scientific “arm” of industry, Dr. Crea said allegations need to be substantiated by facts.

“The wide adoption of VARC definitions implies that they have been well accepted by the scientific community and that they have stood the test of time,” Dr. Crea said. “EHJ has a history of publishing high-quality science. We welcome robust arguments that may challenge previously published work. Readers who perceive gaps are encouraged to provide a detailed challenge and engage with the journal.”
 

Defining hospitalizations

One of the surgeons’ biggest concerns is that VARC-3 now defines hospitalization or rehospitalization as “any admission after the index hospitalization or study enrollment” for at least 24 hours, including an ED stay.

VARC-2 and SURTAVI defined hospitalizations as those for valve-related symptoms or worsening heart failure, whereas the newly reformulated definition of hospitalization was part of the main composite endpoint in the PARTNER-3 trial, along with stroke and mortality, that drove the superiority of TAVR over SAVR at 1 year for low-risk patients, Dr. Dayan noted.

“It’s not uncommon for patients who have cardiac surgery to come back for issues related to wound healing or mild pulmonary edema for a day or 2, and if you include these hospitalizations in the primary endpoint, it will dilute the real benefit of SAVR versus TAVR, which is mortality and stroke,” he added.

In choosing the broader definition, Dr. Généreux said they borrowed from heart failure studies that take a granular approach and account for every hospitalization, be it for a medication change or adjustment. “We cannot pick and choose which hospitalization we are going to consider or ignore.”

VARC-3 proposes criteria for identifying and diagnosing hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion and features a detailed chart of the new classification scheme for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction includes structural valve deterioration, nonstructural valve dysfunction (including abnormalities not intrinsic to the valve such as paravalvular regurgitation or prosthesis-patient mismatch), thrombosis, and endocarditis. VARC-3 proposes a five-class grading system for paravalvular regurgitation (mild, mild-moderate, moderate, moderate-severe, severe).

The document updates what the authors called a “previously vague definition” of valve thrombosis proposed in 2011 to now include “clinically significant” prosthetic valve thrombosis. This requires clinical sequelae of a thromboembolic event (stroke, transient ischemic attack, retinal occlusion, or other evidence of thromboembolism) or worsening valve stenosis/regurgitation and either hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 2 or 3 or confirmatory imaging (CT evidence of HALT or transesophageal echocardiographic findings). In the absence of symptoms/clinical sequelae, valve thrombosis (subclinical) can be diagnosed if there is hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 3 and confirmatory imaging.

Bioprosthetic valve failure is divided into three stages, with stage 1 taking into account clinical factors along with valve dysfunction, stage 2 being reintervention, and stage 3 being valve-related death.

“For us, bioprosthesis valve failure is not only the need for reintervention, but it’s also mortality, it’s also a significant increase in gradient or the occurrence of paravalvular leak,” said Dr. Généreux, of the Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “So it’s much more clinical.”
 

Stroke, myocardial infarction

VARC-3 provides detailed definitions of neurologic events and, in an attempt to harmonize with the Neurologic Academic Research Consortium, recommends combining assessment of neurologic symptoms with tissue-based criteria (pathology or neuroimaging, ideally diffusion-weighted MRI) to define stroke and other central nervous system injury.

It also recommends that assessment be performed 30-90 days after a neurologic event and that assessment of neurologic deficits for cerebral embolic protection trials be performed by a neurologist.

VARC-3 endorses the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction for MI types 1-3, 4B, and 4C.

For periprocedural MI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary bypass graft surgery, TAVR, and SAVR, however, it endorses the modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and Academic Research Consortium-2 definition, which uses troponin or creatine kinase-MB thresholds.

“Given that most current and future studies related to AVR strategies will involve long-term follow-up, with patients frequently suffering from coronary artery disease, VARC-3 believes that these definitions will allow the most appropriate characterization and classification of types of MI occurring in this population,” the committee wrote.

The decision comes after last year’s controversy surrounding the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which used a modified version of the SCAI definition for periprocedural MI as part of its primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI.

Initial reports showed nearly twice the rate of periprocedural MI with cardiac surgery as with PCI, but after a BBC investigation involving leaked data and an onslaught of criticism from surgeons, later results using the third universal definition showed surgery had the advantage.

The debacle frayed relations between surgeons and interventionalists and prompted EACTS to withdraw its support for treatment recommendations for left main coronary artery disease.

Dr. Dayan applauded VARC-3 for incorporating more detailed information on stroke and neurologic events, but said the use of the SCAI definition in the final published document is in “total disregard” to the controversy generated among surgeons and interventionalists.

“The main concern for surgeons is defining periprocedural MI just by biochemical definitions, without any additional criteria like ECG, angiographic,” he said. “This is totally new and goes against what surgeons have been advocating for years around EXCEL.”

Dr. Sádaba was troubled by the definitions of MI and hospitalization, but also questioned other changes, like lumping vascular complications together with access-related complications. “The sense is a lot of what they’ve put here favors one type of intervention over the other.”

Dr. Généreux reported receiving consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular System, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Sig.Num, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Saranas, and Puzzle Medical. Dr. Crea reported receiving personal fees from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and AstraZeneca, and is a member of the advisory board of GlyCardial Diagnostics. Dr. Dayan and Dr. Sádaba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The newly updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions and endpoints proposed for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) research aim to add more granularity and a patient focus to a rapidly evolving field, the authors say.

Work began in 2016 to update definitions in the document to be more contemporary, as TAVR matured over the last 10 years to include younger, lower-risk patients and began moving to long-term outcomes, lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, said in an interview.

“The main change in VARC-3 is really that we tried to define not only procedural outcome, both for TAVR and aortic valve replacement performed by surgery, but also more the long-term outcomes mainly based on the patient – so quality of life, bioprosthetic valve failure, how do we define a valve failure, and also the need for rehospitalization,” he said.

However, soon after the VARC-3 document was published on April 19, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and Journal of the American College of Cardiology, surgeons took to social media to highlight the writing committee’s financial ties to industry and to suggest some definitions were shaped to favor transcatheter approaches.

“There’s no doubt that the coauthors who participated in these guidelines are experts; nobody would argue about that but what we can argue, and I’m 100% sure about, is that we have experts outside the payroll of industry who are excellent and can be part of this guideline drafting in an unbiased way,” Victor Dayan, MD, adjunct professor of cardiac surgery, National Institute of Cardiac Surgery, Montevideo, Uruguay, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Physicians recommends guideline committee members with moderate- or high-level conflicts of interest recuse themselves from authorship, he noted that one author has received more than $2 million in fees from industry in the past 4-5 years.

In all, 20 of 23 authors were involved in PARTNER, SURTAVI, and PORTICO, and several also write clinical guidelines for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. “So we have the same authors that are judge, jury, and attorney for these issues,” Dr. Dayan said.

In a comment, J. Rafael Sádaba, MD, PhD, interim secretary general for the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, pointed out that only three committee members are surgeons and that author disclosures took up nearly a full page of the document. “Surely they would be able to find very capable physicians with far less conflicts of interest.”

Dr. Sádaba said the question to him is why professional societies like ACC and AHA don’t define the endpoints for the clinical trials that will inform their guidelines.

“One could say these people are there because they’re good scientists, trialists, but one at least has to ask why is this happening. Why are these people setting the rules for the trials they’re running?” said Dr. Sádaba, of the Royal Navarre Hospital, Pamplona, Spain.

Dr. Généreux dismissed the Twitter comments as coming from a handful of people who engage in conspiracy theories. The VARC-3 document, he said, was created with input from 75 experts, including Food and Drug Administration officials, and the final document was reviewed by the FDA and underwent rigorous peer review prior to publication.

“The question is: do you believe there is bias when people are involved in studies driven by the industry? Well, this is where we derive our science in this field,” he said. “We are very transparent and disclose our conflicts of interest [COI].”

Commenting further, Dr. Généreux added, “this was a very well-balanced group and to imply that because we work with industry, we don’t have the best interest of the patient in mind is wrong.”

Editor in chief of the EHJ, Filippo Crea, MD, PhD, Catholic University, Rome, said in an comment that “it is not surprising that most of the authors have experience in TAVR trials. All of the authors have carefully disclosed their COIs.”

He noted that the EHJ and JACC copublished the first VARC consensus in 2011, VARC-2 1 year later, and that VARC-3 was reviewed by four external reviewers and two editors and was accepted for publication after two revisions.

Asked about a shot on social media that the EHJ had long ago “sold its soul” to be the scientific “arm” of industry, Dr. Crea said allegations need to be substantiated by facts.

“The wide adoption of VARC definitions implies that they have been well accepted by the scientific community and that they have stood the test of time,” Dr. Crea said. “EHJ has a history of publishing high-quality science. We welcome robust arguments that may challenge previously published work. Readers who perceive gaps are encouraged to provide a detailed challenge and engage with the journal.”
 

Defining hospitalizations

One of the surgeons’ biggest concerns is that VARC-3 now defines hospitalization or rehospitalization as “any admission after the index hospitalization or study enrollment” for at least 24 hours, including an ED stay.

VARC-2 and SURTAVI defined hospitalizations as those for valve-related symptoms or worsening heart failure, whereas the newly reformulated definition of hospitalization was part of the main composite endpoint in the PARTNER-3 trial, along with stroke and mortality, that drove the superiority of TAVR over SAVR at 1 year for low-risk patients, Dr. Dayan noted.

“It’s not uncommon for patients who have cardiac surgery to come back for issues related to wound healing or mild pulmonary edema for a day or 2, and if you include these hospitalizations in the primary endpoint, it will dilute the real benefit of SAVR versus TAVR, which is mortality and stroke,” he added.

In choosing the broader definition, Dr. Généreux said they borrowed from heart failure studies that take a granular approach and account for every hospitalization, be it for a medication change or adjustment. “We cannot pick and choose which hospitalization we are going to consider or ignore.”

VARC-3 proposes criteria for identifying and diagnosing hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion and features a detailed chart of the new classification scheme for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction includes structural valve deterioration, nonstructural valve dysfunction (including abnormalities not intrinsic to the valve such as paravalvular regurgitation or prosthesis-patient mismatch), thrombosis, and endocarditis. VARC-3 proposes a five-class grading system for paravalvular regurgitation (mild, mild-moderate, moderate, moderate-severe, severe).

The document updates what the authors called a “previously vague definition” of valve thrombosis proposed in 2011 to now include “clinically significant” prosthetic valve thrombosis. This requires clinical sequelae of a thromboembolic event (stroke, transient ischemic attack, retinal occlusion, or other evidence of thromboembolism) or worsening valve stenosis/regurgitation and either hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 2 or 3 or confirmatory imaging (CT evidence of HALT or transesophageal echocardiographic findings). In the absence of symptoms/clinical sequelae, valve thrombosis (subclinical) can be diagnosed if there is hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 3 and confirmatory imaging.

Bioprosthetic valve failure is divided into three stages, with stage 1 taking into account clinical factors along with valve dysfunction, stage 2 being reintervention, and stage 3 being valve-related death.

“For us, bioprosthesis valve failure is not only the need for reintervention, but it’s also mortality, it’s also a significant increase in gradient or the occurrence of paravalvular leak,” said Dr. Généreux, of the Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “So it’s much more clinical.”
 

Stroke, myocardial infarction

VARC-3 provides detailed definitions of neurologic events and, in an attempt to harmonize with the Neurologic Academic Research Consortium, recommends combining assessment of neurologic symptoms with tissue-based criteria (pathology or neuroimaging, ideally diffusion-weighted MRI) to define stroke and other central nervous system injury.

It also recommends that assessment be performed 30-90 days after a neurologic event and that assessment of neurologic deficits for cerebral embolic protection trials be performed by a neurologist.

VARC-3 endorses the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction for MI types 1-3, 4B, and 4C.

For periprocedural MI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary bypass graft surgery, TAVR, and SAVR, however, it endorses the modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and Academic Research Consortium-2 definition, which uses troponin or creatine kinase-MB thresholds.

“Given that most current and future studies related to AVR strategies will involve long-term follow-up, with patients frequently suffering from coronary artery disease, VARC-3 believes that these definitions will allow the most appropriate characterization and classification of types of MI occurring in this population,” the committee wrote.

The decision comes after last year’s controversy surrounding the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which used a modified version of the SCAI definition for periprocedural MI as part of its primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI.

Initial reports showed nearly twice the rate of periprocedural MI with cardiac surgery as with PCI, but after a BBC investigation involving leaked data and an onslaught of criticism from surgeons, later results using the third universal definition showed surgery had the advantage.

The debacle frayed relations between surgeons and interventionalists and prompted EACTS to withdraw its support for treatment recommendations for left main coronary artery disease.

Dr. Dayan applauded VARC-3 for incorporating more detailed information on stroke and neurologic events, but said the use of the SCAI definition in the final published document is in “total disregard” to the controversy generated among surgeons and interventionalists.

“The main concern for surgeons is defining periprocedural MI just by biochemical definitions, without any additional criteria like ECG, angiographic,” he said. “This is totally new and goes against what surgeons have been advocating for years around EXCEL.”

Dr. Sádaba was troubled by the definitions of MI and hospitalization, but also questioned other changes, like lumping vascular complications together with access-related complications. “The sense is a lot of what they’ve put here favors one type of intervention over the other.”

Dr. Généreux reported receiving consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular System, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Sig.Num, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Saranas, and Puzzle Medical. Dr. Crea reported receiving personal fees from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and AstraZeneca, and is a member of the advisory board of GlyCardial Diagnostics. Dr. Dayan and Dr. Sádaba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The newly updated Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definitions and endpoints proposed for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) research aim to add more granularity and a patient focus to a rapidly evolving field, the authors say.

Work began in 2016 to update definitions in the document to be more contemporary, as TAVR matured over the last 10 years to include younger, lower-risk patients and began moving to long-term outcomes, lead author Philippe Généreux, MD, said in an interview.

“The main change in VARC-3 is really that we tried to define not only procedural outcome, both for TAVR and aortic valve replacement performed by surgery, but also more the long-term outcomes mainly based on the patient – so quality of life, bioprosthetic valve failure, how do we define a valve failure, and also the need for rehospitalization,” he said.

However, soon after the VARC-3 document was published on April 19, 2021, in the European Heart Journal and Journal of the American College of Cardiology, surgeons took to social media to highlight the writing committee’s financial ties to industry and to suggest some definitions were shaped to favor transcatheter approaches.

“There’s no doubt that the coauthors who participated in these guidelines are experts; nobody would argue about that but what we can argue, and I’m 100% sure about, is that we have experts outside the payroll of industry who are excellent and can be part of this guideline drafting in an unbiased way,” Victor Dayan, MD, adjunct professor of cardiac surgery, National Institute of Cardiac Surgery, Montevideo, Uruguay, said in an interview.

Although the American College of Physicians recommends guideline committee members with moderate- or high-level conflicts of interest recuse themselves from authorship, he noted that one author has received more than $2 million in fees from industry in the past 4-5 years.

In all, 20 of 23 authors were involved in PARTNER, SURTAVI, and PORTICO, and several also write clinical guidelines for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. “So we have the same authors that are judge, jury, and attorney for these issues,” Dr. Dayan said.

In a comment, J. Rafael Sádaba, MD, PhD, interim secretary general for the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, pointed out that only three committee members are surgeons and that author disclosures took up nearly a full page of the document. “Surely they would be able to find very capable physicians with far less conflicts of interest.”

Dr. Sádaba said the question to him is why professional societies like ACC and AHA don’t define the endpoints for the clinical trials that will inform their guidelines.

“One could say these people are there because they’re good scientists, trialists, but one at least has to ask why is this happening. Why are these people setting the rules for the trials they’re running?” said Dr. Sádaba, of the Royal Navarre Hospital, Pamplona, Spain.

Dr. Généreux dismissed the Twitter comments as coming from a handful of people who engage in conspiracy theories. The VARC-3 document, he said, was created with input from 75 experts, including Food and Drug Administration officials, and the final document was reviewed by the FDA and underwent rigorous peer review prior to publication.

“The question is: do you believe there is bias when people are involved in studies driven by the industry? Well, this is where we derive our science in this field,” he said. “We are very transparent and disclose our conflicts of interest [COI].”

Commenting further, Dr. Généreux added, “this was a very well-balanced group and to imply that because we work with industry, we don’t have the best interest of the patient in mind is wrong.”

Editor in chief of the EHJ, Filippo Crea, MD, PhD, Catholic University, Rome, said in an comment that “it is not surprising that most of the authors have experience in TAVR trials. All of the authors have carefully disclosed their COIs.”

He noted that the EHJ and JACC copublished the first VARC consensus in 2011, VARC-2 1 year later, and that VARC-3 was reviewed by four external reviewers and two editors and was accepted for publication after two revisions.

Asked about a shot on social media that the EHJ had long ago “sold its soul” to be the scientific “arm” of industry, Dr. Crea said allegations need to be substantiated by facts.

“The wide adoption of VARC definitions implies that they have been well accepted by the scientific community and that they have stood the test of time,” Dr. Crea said. “EHJ has a history of publishing high-quality science. We welcome robust arguments that may challenge previously published work. Readers who perceive gaps are encouraged to provide a detailed challenge and engage with the journal.”
 

Defining hospitalizations

One of the surgeons’ biggest concerns is that VARC-3 now defines hospitalization or rehospitalization as “any admission after the index hospitalization or study enrollment” for at least 24 hours, including an ED stay.

VARC-2 and SURTAVI defined hospitalizations as those for valve-related symptoms or worsening heart failure, whereas the newly reformulated definition of hospitalization was part of the main composite endpoint in the PARTNER-3 trial, along with stroke and mortality, that drove the superiority of TAVR over SAVR at 1 year for low-risk patients, Dr. Dayan noted.

“It’s not uncommon for patients who have cardiac surgery to come back for issues related to wound healing or mild pulmonary edema for a day or 2, and if you include these hospitalizations in the primary endpoint, it will dilute the real benefit of SAVR versus TAVR, which is mortality and stroke,” he added.

In choosing the broader definition, Dr. Généreux said they borrowed from heart failure studies that take a granular approach and account for every hospitalization, be it for a medication change or adjustment. “We cannot pick and choose which hospitalization we are going to consider or ignore.”

VARC-3 proposes criteria for identifying and diagnosing hypoattenuated leaflet thickening (HALT) and reduced leaflet motion and features a detailed chart of the new classification scheme for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and failure.

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction includes structural valve deterioration, nonstructural valve dysfunction (including abnormalities not intrinsic to the valve such as paravalvular regurgitation or prosthesis-patient mismatch), thrombosis, and endocarditis. VARC-3 proposes a five-class grading system for paravalvular regurgitation (mild, mild-moderate, moderate, moderate-severe, severe).

The document updates what the authors called a “previously vague definition” of valve thrombosis proposed in 2011 to now include “clinically significant” prosthetic valve thrombosis. This requires clinical sequelae of a thromboembolic event (stroke, transient ischemic attack, retinal occlusion, or other evidence of thromboembolism) or worsening valve stenosis/regurgitation and either hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 2 or 3 or confirmatory imaging (CT evidence of HALT or transesophageal echocardiographic findings). In the absence of symptoms/clinical sequelae, valve thrombosis (subclinical) can be diagnosed if there is hemodynamic valve deterioration stage 3 and confirmatory imaging.

Bioprosthetic valve failure is divided into three stages, with stage 1 taking into account clinical factors along with valve dysfunction, stage 2 being reintervention, and stage 3 being valve-related death.

“For us, bioprosthesis valve failure is not only the need for reintervention, but it’s also mortality, it’s also a significant increase in gradient or the occurrence of paravalvular leak,” said Dr. Généreux, of the Morristown (N.J.) Medical Center. “So it’s much more clinical.”
 

Stroke, myocardial infarction

VARC-3 provides detailed definitions of neurologic events and, in an attempt to harmonize with the Neurologic Academic Research Consortium, recommends combining assessment of neurologic symptoms with tissue-based criteria (pathology or neuroimaging, ideally diffusion-weighted MRI) to define stroke and other central nervous system injury.

It also recommends that assessment be performed 30-90 days after a neurologic event and that assessment of neurologic deficits for cerebral embolic protection trials be performed by a neurologist.

VARC-3 endorses the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction for MI types 1-3, 4B, and 4C.

For periprocedural MI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary bypass graft surgery, TAVR, and SAVR, however, it endorses the modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and Academic Research Consortium-2 definition, which uses troponin or creatine kinase-MB thresholds.

“Given that most current and future studies related to AVR strategies will involve long-term follow-up, with patients frequently suffering from coronary artery disease, VARC-3 believes that these definitions will allow the most appropriate characterization and classification of types of MI occurring in this population,” the committee wrote.

The decision comes after last year’s controversy surrounding the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which used a modified version of the SCAI definition for periprocedural MI as part of its primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, and MI.

Initial reports showed nearly twice the rate of periprocedural MI with cardiac surgery as with PCI, but after a BBC investigation involving leaked data and an onslaught of criticism from surgeons, later results using the third universal definition showed surgery had the advantage.

The debacle frayed relations between surgeons and interventionalists and prompted EACTS to withdraw its support for treatment recommendations for left main coronary artery disease.

Dr. Dayan applauded VARC-3 for incorporating more detailed information on stroke and neurologic events, but said the use of the SCAI definition in the final published document is in “total disregard” to the controversy generated among surgeons and interventionalists.

“The main concern for surgeons is defining periprocedural MI just by biochemical definitions, without any additional criteria like ECG, angiographic,” he said. “This is totally new and goes against what surgeons have been advocating for years around EXCEL.”

Dr. Sádaba was troubled by the definitions of MI and hospitalization, but also questioned other changes, like lumping vascular complications together with access-related complications. “The sense is a lot of what they’ve put here favors one type of intervention over the other.”

Dr. Généreux reported receiving consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Cardiovascular System, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Opsens, Siemens, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Sig.Num, Saranas, Teleflex, Tryton Medical, and has equity in Pi-Cardia, Sig.Num, SoundBite Medical Solutions, Saranas, and Puzzle Medical. Dr. Crea reported receiving personal fees from Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and AstraZeneca, and is a member of the advisory board of GlyCardial Diagnostics. Dr. Dayan and Dr. Sádaba reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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

Personalized nutritional support for adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure and deemed to be at high nutritional risk reduced the risk of death or adverse cardiovascular events, compared with standard hospital food, new research indicates.
 

The Swiss EFFORT trial focused on patients with chronic heart failure and high risk of malnutrition defined by low body mass index, weight loss, and low food intake upon hospital admission.

“This high-risk group of chronic heart failure patients showed a significant improvement in mortality over 30 and 180 days, as well as other clinical outcomes, when individualized nutritional support interventions were offered to patients,” Philipp Schuetz, MD, MPH, Kantonsspital Aarau, Switzerland, said in an interview.

“While monitoring the nutritional status should be done also in outpatient settings by [general practitioners], malnutrition screening upon hospital admission may help to identify high-risk patients with high risk for nutritional status deterioration during the hospital stay who will benefit from nutritional assessment and treatment,” said Dr. Schuetz.

The study was published online May 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

It’s not all about salt

The findings are based on a prespecified secondary analysis of outcomes in 645 patients (median age, 78.8 years, 52% men) hospitalized with chronic heart failure who participated in the open-label EFFORT study.  

One-third of patients were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and two-thirds had chronic heart failure and other acute medical illnesses requiring hospitalization.

All patients were at risk of malnutrition based on a Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score of 3 points or higher. They were randomly allocated 1:1 to individualized nutritional support to reach energy, protein, and micronutrient goals or usual hospital food (control group). 

By 30 days, 27 of 321 patients (8.4%) receiving nutritional support had died compared with 48 of 324 patients (14.8%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.75; P = .002)

Patients with high nutritional risk (NRS >4 points) showed the most benefit from nutritional support.

Compared with patients with moderate nutritional risk scores (NRS score 3-4), those with high nutritional risk (NRS >4) had a highly significant 65% increased mortality risk over 180 days.

The individual component of the NRS with the strongest association with mortality was low food intake in the week before hospitalization.

Patients who received nutritional support in the hospital also had a lower risk for major cardiovascular events at 30 days (17.4% vs. 26.9%; OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P = .001).

“Historically, cardiologists and internists caring for patients with heart failure have mainly focused on salt-restrictive diets to reduce blood volume and thus optimize heart function. Yet, reduction of salt intake has not been shown to effectively improve clinical outcome but may, on the contrary, increase the risk of malnutrition as low-salt diets are often not tasty,” Dr. Schuetz said.

“Our data suggest that we should move our focus away from salt-restrictive diets to high-protein diets to cover individual nutritional goals in this high-risk group of patients, which includes screening, assessment, and nutritional support by dietitians,” Dr. Schuetz said.

In a linked editorial, Sheldon Gottlieb, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said there has been “relatively little attention” paid to the role of diet in heart failure other than recommending reduced salt intake. 

In fact, in the 2021 American College of Cardiology expert consensus recommendations for optimizing heart failure treatment, roughly five words are devoted to diet and exercise and there is no mention of nutrition assessment by a dietitian, he points out.

“This study adds another tile to the still-fragmentary mosaic picture of the patient with heart failure at nutritional risk who might benefit from nutritional support,” Dr. Dr. Gottlieb wrote.

“ ‘Good medical care’ dictates that all hospitalized patients deserve to have a standardized nutritional assessment; the challenge remains: how to determine which patient with heart failure at nutritional risk will benefit by medical nutrition therapy,” Dr. Gottlieb said.

The Swiss National Science Foundation and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau provided funding for the trial. Dr. Schuetz’s institution has previously received unrestricted grant money unrelated to this project from Nestle Health Science and Abbott Nutrition. Dr. Gottlieb owns a federal trademark for the “Greens, Beans, and Leans” diet, and has a pending federal trademark for “FLOATS”: flax + oats cereal.

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