Citations

Abstract Purpose To report historical patterns of pharmaceutical expenditures, to identify factors that may influence future spending, and to predict growth in drug spending in 2020 in the United States, with a focus on the nonfederal hospital and clinic sectors. Methods Historical patterns were assessed by examining data on drug purchases from manufacturers using the IQVIA National Sales Perspectives database. Factors that may influence drug spending in hospitals and clinics in 2020 were reviewed, including new drug approvals, patent expirations, and potential new policies or legislation. Focused analyses were conducted for specialty drugs, biosimilars, and diabetes medications. For nonfederal hospitals, clinics, and overall (all sectors), estimates of growth of pharmaceutical expenditures in 2020 were based on a combination of quantitative analyses and expert opinion. Results In 2019, overall US pharmaceutical expenditures grew 5.4% compared to 2018, for a total of $507.9 billion. This increase was driven to similar degrees by prices, utilization, and new drugs. Adalimumab was the top drug in US expenditures in 2019, followed by apixaban and insulin glargine. Drug expenditures were $36.9 billion (a 1.5% increase from 2018) and $90.3 billion (an 11.8% increase from 2018) in nonfederal hospitals and clinics, respectively. In clinics, growth was driven by new products and increased utilization, whereas in hospitals growth was driven by new products and price increases. Several new drugs that will likely influence spending are expected to be approved in 2020. Specialty and cancer drugs will continue to drive expenditures. Conclusion For 2020 we expect overall prescription drug spending to rise by 4.0% to 6.0%, whereas in clinics and hospitals we anticipate increases of 9.0% to 11.0% and 2.0% to 4.0%, respectively, compared to 2019. These national estimates of future pharmaceutical expenditure growth may not be representative of any particular health system because of the myriad of local factors that influence actual spending.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in medicine are currently areas of intense exploration, showing potential to automate human tasks and even perform tasks beyond human capabilities. Literacy and understanding of AI/ML methods are becoming increasingly important to researchers and clinicians. The first objective of this review is to provide the novice reader with literacy of AI/ML methods and provide a foundation for how one might conduct an ML study. We provide a technical overview of some of the most commonly used terms, techniques, and challenges in AI/ML studies, with reference to recent studies in cardiac electrophysiology to illustrate key points. The second objective of this review is to use examples from recent literature to discuss how AI and ML are changing clinical practice and research in cardiac electrophysiology, with emphasis on disease detection and diagnosis, prediction of patient outcomes, and novel characterization of disease. The final objective is to highlight important considerations and challenges for appropriate validation, adoption, and deployment of AI technologies into clinical practice.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

In the past year, there have been numerous advances in our understanding of arrhythmia mechanisms, diagnosis, and new therapies. We have seen advances in basic cardiac electrophysiology with data suggesting that secretoneurin may be a biomarker for patients at risk of ventricular arrhythmias, and we have learned of the potential role of an NPR-C (natriuretic peptide receptor-C) in atrial fibrosis and the role of an atrial specific 2-pore potassium channel TASK-1 as a therapeutic target for atrial fibrillation. We have seen studies demonstrating the role of sensory neurons in sleep apnea–related atrial fibrillation and the association between bariatric surgery and atrial fibrillation ablation outcomes. Artificial intelligence applied to electrocardiography has yielded estimates of age, sex, and overall health. We have seen new tools for collection of patient-centered outcomes following catheter ablation. There have been significant advances in the ability to identify ventricular tachycardia termination sites through high-density mapping of deceleration zones. We have learned that right ventricular dysfunction may be a predictor of survival benefit after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy. We have seen further insights into the role of His bundle pacing on improving outcomes. As our understanding of cardiac laminopathies advances, we may have new tools to predict arrhythmic event rates in gene carriers. Finally, we have seen numerous advances in the treatment of arrhythmias in patients with congenital heart disease.

Background Ankle‐brachial indexes ( ABI ) are a noninvasive diagnostic tool for peripheral arterial disease and a marker of increased cardiovascular risk. ABI is calculated using the highest systolic blood pressure of the 4 ankle arteries (bilateral dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial). Accordingly, patients may be assigned a normal ABI when the result would be abnormal if calculated using one of the other blood pressure readings. Cardiovascular outcomes for patients with discordant ABI s are undescribed. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent ABI measurement for any indication between January 1996 and June 2018. Those with normal ABI s (1.00–1.39) were included. We compared patients with all 4 normal ABI s (calculated using all 4 ankle arteries; n=15 577, median age 64.0 years, 54.4% men) to those with discordant ABI s (at least 1 abnormal ABI ≤0.99; n=2095, median age 66.0 years, 47.8% men). The outcomes assessed were ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and all‐cause mortality. Compared with patients with concordant normal ABI s, patients with discordant ABI s were older; women; smoked; and had chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, or prior stroke. Patients with discordant ABI s had a greater risk of myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.10–1.56), ischemic stroke ( HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.37–1.72), and all‐cause mortality ( HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16–1.39), including after adjustment for baseline comorbidities. Conclusions Discordant ABI results were associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all‐cause mortality in the studied population. Clinicians should examine ABI calculations using all 4 ankle arteries to better characterize a patient's cardiovascular risk.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that is wreaking havoc on the health and economy of much of human civilization. Electrophysiologists have been impacted personally and professionally by this global catastrophe. In this joint article from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, we identify the potential risks of exposure to patients, allied healthcare staff, industry representatives, and hospital administrators. We also describe the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac arrhythmias and methods of triage based on acuity and patient comorbidities. We provide guidance for managing invasive and noninvasive electrophysiology procedures, clinic visits, and cardiac device interrogations. In addition, we discuss resource conservation and the role of telemedicine in remote patient care along with management strategies for affected patients.

Systemic glucocorticoids are the principal treatment for acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which remains the major cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). However, there are no validated biomarkers that measure a patient's response to glucocorticoid therapy, and thus response is evaluated by the change in clinical symptom severity. A major weakness in the predictive power of clinical responses is that changes to all organs are weighted equally even though the major driver of NRM is irreversible damage to the crypts of the GI tract. Recent studies from the Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) have validated an algorithm probability (MAP) that combines serum concentrations of two biomarkers of GVHD (REG3α and ST2) to generate an estimated probability of 6 month NRM for individual patients. The MAP has been considered a "liquid biopsy" that estimates the damage caused by GVHD to crypts throughout the lower GI tract (Hartwell et al., JCI Insight, 2017; Major-Monfried et al., Blood, 2018). We hypothesized that the change in MAP between start of treatment and 28 days later could serve as a response biomarker for GVHD and might compare favorably to the change in clinical symptoms that measures response to GVHD treatment, which is widely used as a surrogate for long term survival and is the primary endpoint in most GVHD treatment trials (Martin et al., BBMT, 2009; MacMillan et al., Blood, 2010). We prospectively collected serum samples and clinical staging from 368 sequential HCT patients who received systemic treatment for acute GVHD in one of 20 MAGIC centers between January 2016 and February 2018. We measured the serum concentrations of REG3α and ST2 before and after systemic therapy for acute GVHD and computed MAPs, the changes in MAPs, and clinical responses for each patient. MAPs of patients who experienced 6 month NRM showed significantly greater increases than MAPs of patients who survived (p=0.0004). In patients whose MAPs at the start of treatment were low (Ann Arbor 1, MAP < 0.141) or intermediate (Ann Arbor 2, 0.141 ≤ MAP ≤ 0.290), 6 month NRM clustered among those who had the greatest increases in MAP after 28 days (Fig 1A,B). In patients with high MAPs at the start of treatment (Ann Arbor 3, MAP > 0.290), those who survived tended to have the largest decreases in MAP (Fig 1C). These changes in MAP suggested crossing a single threshold could predict risk of mortality. We found that patients whose MAPs rose above a threshold MAP of 0.290 (5% of Ann Arbor 1, 27% of Ann Arbor 2) had significantly worse survival compared to those who remained below it, whereas the large number patients with initially high MAPs that remained above the threshold (66% of Ann Arbor 3) had a large increases in mortality (Fig 2). When measured at day 28, the MAP was significantly more accurate in predicting NRM than the gold standard of the clinical response, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.86 and 0.70, respectively (p<0.0001). An algorithm that combined clinical response with biomarkers generated the same AUC as the MAP alone (0.83 v 0.86, p = NS). We next tested whether the same MAP threshold of 0.290 could predict risk within clinical response subsets. A significant minority (10%) of clinical responders had high MAPs and experienced three-fold greater NRM than those with low MAPs (40% v 12%, p<0.0001) whereas the majority (57%) of non-responders had low MAPs and experienced almost three-fold lower NRM than those with high MAPs (24% v 65%, p<0.0001) (Fig 3). Thus the MAP provides important prognostic information over and above the change in clinical symptoms, further stratifying both responders and non-responders at four weeks of treatment. The MAP threshold classified patients both with and without significant lower GI symptoms because the MAP is a more specific measure of irreversible cryptic damage in patients with copious diarrhea and more sensitive in patients with less than 0.5 liters of daily diarrhea (Fig 4). We conclude that the MAP is, to our knowledge, the first validated laboratory test to serve as response biomarker for the treatment for acute GVHD and a more accurate predictor of survival than clinical response after four weeks of treatment. The MAP may serve as a novel endpoint and an important complement to changes in clinical symptom severity in future trials of GVHD treatment. Disclosures Srinagesh: National Institutes of Health: Research Funding. Ozbek:Viracor: Patents & Royalties: Biomarker Patent. Ayuk:Novartis: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board, Research Funding. Aziz:Doris Duke Charitable Foundation: Research Funding. Defilipp:Incyte: Research Funding. Grupp:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; CBMG: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Adaptimmune: Other: study steering committees or scientific advisory boards; Cure Genetics: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy. Hexner:novartis: Research Funding. Kitko:Mallinckrodt: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mielke:EBMT/EHA: Other: Travel support; ISCT: Other: Travel support; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel and speakers fee (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau; IACH: Other: Travel support; Kiadis Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau; DGHO: Other: Travel support; Bellicum: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel (via institution); GILEAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel (via institution), Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support (via institution), Speakers Bureau. Merli:Sobi: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bellicum: Consultancy. Pulsipher:Amgen: Other: Lecture; Miltenyi: Research Funding; Bellicum: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Other: Education for employees; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Medac: Honoraria. Qayed:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Reshef:Pfizer: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Levine:Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Other: non-financial support; Viracor: Patents & Royalties: biomarker patent; Ironwood: Honoraria; bluebird bio: Consultancy; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Kamada: Research Funding. Ferrara:National Institutes of Health: Research Funding; ViraCor: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kamada: Consultancy; Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Enlivex: Consultancy; Xenikos: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Consultancy.

Background The epidemiological transition of non-communicable diseases replacing infectious diseases as the main contributors to disease burden has been well documented in global health literature. Less focus, however, has been given to the relationship between sociodemographic changes and injury. The aim of this study was to examine the association between disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from injury for 195 countries and territories at different levels along the development spectrum between 1990 and 2017 based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 estimates. Methods Injury mortality was estimated using the GBD mortality database, corrections for garbage coding and CODEm—the cause of death ensemble modelling tool. Morbidity estimation was based on surveys and inpatient and outpatient data sets for 30 cause-of-injury with 47 nature-of-injury categories each. The Socio-demographic Index (SDI) is a composite indicator that includes lagged income per capita, average educational attainment over age 15 years and total fertility rate. Results For many causes of injury, age-standardised DALY rates declined with increasing SDI, although road injury, interpersonal violence and self-harm did not follow this pattern. Particularly for self-harm opposing patterns were observed in regions with similar SDI levels. For road injuries, this effect was less pronounced. Conclusions The overall global pattern is that of declining injury burden with increasing SDI. However, not all injuries follow this pattern, which suggests multiple underlying mechanisms influencing injury DALYs. There is a need for a detailed understanding of these patterns to help to inform national and global efforts to address injury-related health outcomes across the development spectrum.

Key Points The MAGIC algorithm probability, computed from 2 serum biomarkers, predicts mortality in all GVHD grades after 4 weeks of treatment. Dynamic changes in the MAGIC algorithm probability occur within all biomarker risk groups and can guide therapy.