Sensible Medicine

Gosh was this a great conversation about her recent paper on specification curve analysis of nutritional observational studies. Here is Dr. Zeraatkar’s bio: Dena Zeraatkar, PhD is an Assistant Professor in the Departments of Anesthesia and Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI) at McMaster University. She earned her doctoral degree at McMaster University in the Health Research Methodology graduate program. Following her doctoral training, she pursued postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, for which she was awarded a Banting scholarship. Her research centers on evidence synthesis and evaluation—identifying and appraising research to optimally inform healthcare and public health decisions. She often works in areas in which the evidence is complex or conflicting, examples of which include nutrition and COVID-19 therapeutics. For her research, in 2023, she was awarded a Gairdner Early Career Investigator Award. First, it would help to read my comments yesterday on the paper. Dr. Zeraatkar is well-spoken, clear and she explains a complicated topic in simple terms. Her work is exactly the type we love at Sensible Medicine. Stay for her final comment. It made me so happy. Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

The Thomas Sowell quote, “On closer scrutiny, it turns out that many of today's problems are a result of yesterday's solutions” has been ringing in my head a lot lately. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

Gosh was I lucky to speak with Professor Erik Van Zwet from Leiden University in the Netherlands. He is the first author on a recent NEJM Evidence paper looking at more than 23,000 trials in the Cochrane Database. (I linked to an URL that should get by the paywall.) There are technical aspects of this paper. We hit on some (not a lot) of them. The gist of it though is really important when we look at evidence. Erik did an excellent job of explaining P-values, trial power, and, at the end, we discuss how this work might inform the ability of trials to replicate. This discussion also pairs well with one I had with computer scientist Ben Recht. I hope you enjoy the conversation. Please do consider subscribing or supporting our work as Sensible Medicine remains an ad-free user-supported place to learn about medical evidence. JMM Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

Why have I been committed to medical education? Some of the reasons are admirable but not terribly novel. Others are a bit hard to admit, but just as true. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

Friday Reflection 35: Why Don’t Doctors Want to See Patients? I was asked “Why is it that doctors don’t want to see patients?” and I could not answer the question. Fourteen months later, here is my response. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

Ben Recht is a professor at UC Berkeley. You know, the place that has all those parking spaces for the Nobel laureates. He understands the innards of math. And that is exactly why he explained that doctors who use evidence don’t have to get bogged down in technicalities. I reached out to Ben to discuss a complicated but provocative statistical paper in NEJM evidence. But we mostly talk basics. Ben writes at his Substack arg min This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

As many of you know, I have long argued (unsuccessfully until now) for a placebo-controlled trial of AF ablation. One group gets the ablation; the other gets a placebo or sham procedure. This way we can sort out the placebo-resistant effect of the ablation. Finally, here is the first report of one. Dr. Malcolm Finlay is an electrophysiologist at St Bartholomew hospital in London UK and primary investigator of the study. They recently published their feasibility study for AF ablation vs placebo. The American Heart Journal published the pilot study of 20 patients. Finlay and colleagues call it the ORBITA AF trial. But it’s important to note that this was done separate from the ORBITA investigators at Imperial College. The larger study will have a different name. Here is a copy and paste: Twenty patients with PersAF (duration <2years) were recruited, representing 10% of the proposed larger trial as determined by a power calculation. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either PVI±DCCV(PVI group) or DCCV+Placebo(DCCV group). The primary endpoint was to evaluate the blinding of the patients. The good news is that it mostly worked. Blinding was successful in most patients. Recurrence of AF was less in the ablation vs cardioversion arm. But the numbers were too small to say much. Same with quality of life measures, which were mostly similar until 12 months. The authors concluded that This feasibility study establishes the potential for conducting a blinded, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of PVI versus DCCV in patients with PersAF. I hope you enjoy the conversation. This is darn exciting for the field. And I am delighted to publish this conversation on Sensible Medicine. (I also tried to include the un-edited transcript of the conversation.) Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

These patients did the right thing leaving my care. We were wrong for each other, or I had given what I had to offer (at the time) and it was not enough. That does not lessen the feeling that I failed. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

They say dying alone is sad. They also say we all die alone. There is trauma to not dying alone as well. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

If you care about AF you will love this conversation. Soren has some interesting ideas about what AF is now vs what AF was in the past. Here are some links:The LOOP Study (which was non-significant). Effects of Atrial Fibrillation Screening According to N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide: A Secondary Analysis of the Randomized LOOP Study Severity and Etiology of Incident Stroke in Patients Screened for Atrial Fibrillation vs Usual Care and the Impact of Prior Stroke: A Post Hoc Analysis of the LOOP Randomized Clinical Trial Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. BTW: This is the kind of content we aim to bring you at Sensible Medicine. Thanks for your support. I have some great ideas for future conversations. Feel free to let me know your interests, too. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

The study in question is a randomized clinical trial looking at the Million Hearts Model. This model paid health care organizations to assess and reduce CV risk. Obviously, this is an important goal. Heart disease, specifically, atherosclerotic vascular disease, is a leading killer of humans. Any reduction of heart disease should have a benefit on both a person and a population. But paying health systems to do specific things is a policy intervention. Even though a policy, like this one, makes sense, policies can have benefits and potential harms. (An example is the hospital readmissions reduction program (HRRP), which penalized hospitals for excess readmissions. This resulted in a fewer readmissions but it also associated with an increase in death rates in patients with heart failure.) Both Andrew and I were happy that the nudging of Million Hearts was studied The Trial and Program This was a big pragmatic cluster randomized trial that ran over 4 years. More than 300 organizations were randomly assigned 1:1 to have the Million Hearts model or standard care. There were two parts of the model. First there was $10 for every patient who had their 10-year risk calculated with a risk equation. (ACC/AHA is a simple one you can do in 15 seconds with a smartphone.) Then CMS paid each organization $0, $5, or $10 PBPM for each high-risk beneficiary with an annual risk reassessment, with monthly payment amounts dependent on mean risk score change across all of the organization’s high-risk beneficiaries reassessed. Keep in mind that the only components of the risk calculation that are modifiable are cholesterol and blood pressure. (*smoking cessation for smokers). Foy pointed out that Million Hearts was in many ways an incentive system to nudge providers, who then may nudge patients, to take more BP and cholesterol medicine. Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The authors chose two primary outcomes: one a MACE endpoint with MI, stroke, and TIA. The second primary was the same as the first, plus CV death. They originally planned to include only high-risk patients, but then added moderate-risk patients. This factored heavily in the results. Patients were mostly 75 year-olds, men-women split 2/3rds, 1/3rd. Outcomes were derived from claims data—which is messy when it comes to judging MIs and TIAs and specific causes of death. The Results: The first primary endpoint (MI, stroke, TIA) occurred at a rate of 14.8 per 1000 patient-years vs 17.0 per 1000 patient-years. The Hazard ratio came to 0.97 (90% CI - 0.93-1.0). The P-value was 0.09. (The authors had previously stipulated that the P threshold would be 0.10). The second primary, adding in CV death, was similar. A HR of 0.96 (90% CI 093-0.99) and a P = 0.02. These are positive results. But let’s look further. Drivers of the Results: The results were driven almost exclusively by moderate risk patients. Look at Table 3. Reductions in events rates were largest and significant statistically in the moderate-risk but not high-risk group. That is something we have emphasized here at Sensible Medicine. Even though you would think that high-risk patients have the most to gain, they also have more competing risks and perhaps more chance for treatment harm. Like so many other studies, the sweet spot for primary prevention seems to be in the moderate-risk group. Unintended Consequences: A second finding, noted by Andrew, was the highly significant increase in all-cause hospitalizations in the intervention group. These had the most significant p-values of the entire study. Other Limitations: The Million Hearts model randomization was offered to more than 500 organizations but only 342 accepted. This raises the question of generalizability. Were the 342 organizations special in some way? Another factor is that outcomes were modeled on a sample of events—not raw counts. The choice...

Friday Reflection 31: Senses, Memories, and Medicine Medical training introduced me to a whole menu of smells -- both diagnostic tools and reminders of times in my career. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

Sudden cardiac death due to ventricular rhythm disturbances are rare but highly public. It’s strange and curious because you don’t expect healthy athletes to suffer serious cardiac issues. Recently three prominent athletes have survived sudden cardiac death. Christian Erikson, a Danish soccer player, Damar Hamlin, an American football player and Bronny James, son of Lebron James. These high-profile cases have highlighted the issue of sudden cardiac death of athletes. Dr. Dorian has published extensively on this topic. We had a great conversation. I learned a lot and hope you will too. JMM Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Here are three pertinent articles he has published—note the first is from NEJM. Landry CH, Allan KS, Connelly KA, Cunningham K, Morrison LJ, Dorian P; Rescu Investigators. Sudden Cardiac Arrest during Participation in Competitive Sports. N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 16;377(20):1943-1953. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1615710. PMID: 29141175; PMCID: PMC5726886. Weissler Snir A, Connelly KA, Goodman JM, Dorian D, Dorian P. Exercise in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: restrict or rethink. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2021 May 1;320(5):H2101-H2111. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00850.2020. Epub 2021 Mar 26. PMID: 33769918. Weissler-Snir A, Allan K, Cunningham K, Connelly KA, Lee DS, Spears DA, Rakowski H, Dorian P. Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy-Related Sudden Cardiac Death in Young People in Ontario. Circulation. 2019 Nov 19;140(21):1706-1716. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040271. Epub 2019 Oct 21. PMID: 31630535. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

Angela Lu is training to be a physician. She’s interested in public policy. As a third year medical student, she teamed up with established leaders to ask a unique question regarding public disclosure of financial relationships. When the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issues National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) for services or products, they mean business. Such decisions have huge implications. You cannot go against them. Think #HighConsequences. CMS studies the evidence and publishes a proposed decision. It then allows public comments. People care. The idea behind their study, which made it into the Journal of the American Medical Association, was to study how many commenters disclosed their financial conflicts. Dr. Lu went through more than 680 comments submitted on 4 NCDs—all of which were high cost invasive procedures. I won’t spoil the conversation, but they found a very high percentages of comments asking to expand indications for these procedures and very very low percentages of people who disclosed their relevant relationships. This study was made possible by the Open Payments database. One important note: disclosure of relationships was voluntary. Enjoy the conversation. Thanks for listening. JMM This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

Andrew Foy rejoins the Sensible Medicine podcast. We talk first about coronary artery calcium. Andrew is an expert in this area. We have co-written our case against CAC scoring for any cause in the American Family Physician. It’s had little effect as CAC scoring is running rampant. Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. The second part of our conversation centers on a big med-ed project Andrew is co-leading at Penn State. He calls it Argue-to-Learn. The idea is to expose pre-clinical students to the value of civil debate. Here is their paper: Student Perceptions of a New Course Using Argumentation in Medical Education Here is a quote: The absence of argumentation (i.e., a productive exchange of opposing views aimed at improved understanding of a given issue) in medical education may leave physicians susceptible to medical marketing, and incapable of both resolving industry claims and adapting to changing paradigms. Gosh. Gosh. Double Gosh, this is an exciting effort. Listen to Andrew explain. JMM This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

This week, I talk with Andrew Foy, who is an academic cardiologist at Penn State University in Hershey, PA. Andrew is one of the smartest voices in medicine today. We start with the REMEDIAL trial, published recently in JAMA. Ablation vs Meds. Primary endpoint—depression and anxiety. One of the main issues was the control arm—namely that there was no sham control. We referenced this useful review paper on placebo and nocebo effects in cardiology, from Brian Olshansky. Our second topic was the FRAIL AF trial. This was frail, elderly patients who had AF and were stable on Vitamin K antagonists (similar to warfarin) were randomized to remain on the VKA or switch to a direct acting oral anticoagulant. Primary endpoint—major bleeding. FRAIL AF is in Andrew’s wheelhouse as one of his primary academic areas of study is the role of multi-morbidity in translating medical evidence. He mentions a term called heterogenous treatment effects or HTE. I don’t love the term because it’s heavy into jargon. But HTE is super important for using evidence in the clinic. Andrew explains it well. Here is the editorial Andrew co-authored regarding another important trial in elderly patients who were having NSTEMI. I have written about FRAIL AF on Medscape and Sensible Medicine. We were going to talk about coronary artery calcium screening, but we had talked enough and will do a separate podcast on CAC. Sensible Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. As always, let us know what you think. We appreciate the support. Thank you. JMM This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe