Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘lancet’

Very soon, blogs and independent writing will be the only source of unadulterated truths. One such article is shared here written by Adam Kroetsch , formerly in the FDA

A review and comments

The above article compellingly recounts how clinical trials evolved from ad-hoc, investigator-led efforts in the mid-20th century to the bureaucratic behemoths of today. It highlights the “golden age” of the 1980s-1990s, when academic “trialists” pioneered large simple trials like ISIS and GISSI. These mega-trials enrolled tens of thousands with minimal protocols ,one-page forms, no routine monitoring or source data verification (SDV), proper randomization, and focus on clinical hard endpoints and mortality delivering transformative, low-cost evidence on treatments like streptokinase and Aspirin.

The decline followed the rise of Contract Research Organizations (CROs) in the 1990s, global Good clinical practice -GCP guidelines (1996), and FDA missteps. Trials are now industrialized and bureaucratized: extensive on-site monitoring, exhaustive adverse event reporting, data audits, and risk-averse compliance layers inflated the costs (rising 10% annually). Academic and NIH-funded large trials plummeted .Pharma shifted to smaller, often useless biomarker-driven studies instead of clinical outcome. (Eg Drug X reduce NT-pro BNP by this,and it is crowned in glory ). The irony is ,the trialists are crying “foul” at GCP, and call it unscientific as they interupt the industry.

Who is responsible for this chaos?

Primarily commerce and greed in a profit-driven ecosystem .Alos pharma’s risk aversion and demand for speed and volume. Other factors were, heavily empowered CROs, Perverse incentives and Industry balance sheets, dictated the how science should behave. No surprise , true academics and genuine funders retreated amid prohibitive costs.

Final message

GCP  is not a taboo subject,  as some non- academic forces would like to envisage. Let us bring back the golden age of simple trials—even observational ones will bring the truth when done appropriately .Let us stop this big commercialised RCT nonsense  with ultier motives.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Statistics is the most advanced form of mathematics by which predictions about the future can be made with some degree of surety.  It is a vital cog linking biology with  maths. However, since the last few decades, an abnormal man made bio-mathematical mutation is being spotted in the field of medical statistics.

Why superior scientists avoid Non Inferiority (NI)trials?

They avoid relying NI -trials due to fundamental statistical, interpretive, and ethical weaknesses that undermine rigorous evidence and patient benefit.

Superiority trial models , reduce bias  towards the null hypothesis and proactively protect against false claims. NI trials just do the opposite. The same issues dilute differences, biasing toward falsely concluding the new treatment is “not unacceptably worse” than the active control by a pre-specified margin . Without a placebo arm, sensitivity cannot be confirmed, and the assumption remains tentative.

Key vulnerabilities In NI trials include arbitrary, manipulable margins that may permit clinically meaningful inferiority. High success rates (>85–95%, especially industry-sponsored) suggesting bias, and risks ( Biocreep) where successive approvals erode standards. “Non-inferior” does not mean equivalent .It can mask statistically significant inferiority. Reporting often deviates from guidelines, with inconsistent margin justification and analyses (ITT vs. per-protocol).

Ethically, NI designs accept potential efficacy loss for unproven gains (convenience, cost, safety) without direct proof, exposing patients unjustifiably in high-stakes areas. They place disproportionate proof burdens on de-escalation or alternatives while entrenching suboptimal standards.

A Lancet Oncology piece highlights this as “the tyranny of non-inferiority trials”:. The authors propose abandoning superiority/NI distinctions for simple “comparative” trials.

Final message

Superior scientists prefer superiority or hybrid designs, or direct comparisons of net patient-centered outcomes .They never go for the NI shortcuts driven by regulatory or commercial pragmatism.

Reference

1.Tannock IF, Buyse M, De Backer M, et al. The tyranny of non-inferiority trials. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25(10):e520-e525. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00218-3.

2.Beryl P, Vach W. Is there a danger of “biocreep” with non-inferiority trials? Trials. 2011 Dec 13;12(Suppl 1):A29. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-S1-A29. PMCID: PMC3287743.

Read Full Post »

Caution: Harsh language & Unscientific truths

It is a pattern out there, rolled out periodically in cardiac- pharma literature . It happened for Digoxin. They have been trying to do this to beta blockers for quite some time. They successfully ditched beta blockers in systemic hypertension with synthesized evidence. Mind you, BBs are the only drug that received a Nobel Prize for its invention, and its role in post-MI protection is well established.

The script is well written. Trying to ring a death knell for cheap and established medical therapeutic norms, citing lack of evidence. It is done based on some non-sensical study designs called Non-Inferiority Trials. (Tannock I, Buyse M, De Backer M et al.The tyranny of non-inferiority trials The Lancet Oncology, 25, e520-e525 Now, powerful cartels want to get rid of BBs in  post-MI ecosystem. REBOOT, REDUCE-AMI, ABYSS all were done with fixed ideas. Of course, ABYSS didn’t follow their agenda. Now, a  the latest trial has come out with a magical name SMART – DECISION.

Read this paper https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2601005

One famous statistician said, non-inferiority study concept is foundationally flawed. Hence, it is generally not worth reviewing them, as most conclusions are deemed to be wrong and not scientifically consumable. Still, looking beyond the trial design, three important flaws are obvious in SMART-DECISION’ trial , which argues for beta-blocker discontinuation after MI.

The study population is highly selected (median 4.7 years 98% revascularized; median LVEF 59%). The study advocated discontinuation among long-term accrued beneficiaries of BBs rather than typical 6–36-month post-ACS patients. Physician-driven HF hospitalization amplifies open-label bias. A wide non-inferiority margin (HR upper CI <1.4) plus low events (132 total) leave it underpowered, unable to exclude modest 15–25% harm (7.2% vs 9.0%).

Final message

In science, we need to be right first … being polite is optional.

When big science tries to corrupt our minds, what should we do? Let us continue with our conscience and follow the instinct and work for the welfare of our patients. We know the healing power of BBs. Let us be cautious and alert. Never allow wayward science to intrude upon our minds to take STUPID DECISIONS and defame the OMT in CAD.

Postamble

A newchallenge to take on

Fact : There is no published RCT that proves diuretics improve mortality and survival in heart failure.

Action requested : Let all evidence-based cardiologists withhold injections of Furosemide or Torsemide when they encounter their next patient with acute heart failure and pulmonary edema.

Read Full Post »

Getting a second opinion from another expert is a valuable option for our patients when they face a complex decision-making process, especially when a cardiac intervention is advised. No doubt, it is their fundamental rights too.But this could be hard, if the second opinion is sought regarding indication for coronary or interventional procedure.

It is much, much comfortable to concur with the original decision if it is pro -Intervention. (even if it is against your conscience). Vetoing a procedure which was advised by some big hospitals is almost impossible for cardiologists sitting at their office, however experienced they may be. This is because it is sort of going against, the mainstream and defying science as well. Both doctors and physicians are stuck.

I confront such situations often from patients following elite cardiology consults. I had been forthright and genuine and said a firm no or yes to many such procedures . I understood much later, that only a minority of the patients followed my No advice , while invariably they accepted my yes.

After much confabulations , recently, I have made some recalibarations on my values, (decent term for compromise ) despite all the ethical stuff I write in these columns. But, three things I ensure , before giving my opinion which goes against my assessment.

“This procedure is not indicated in the true scientific and moral sense, but 1.If you lack full trust,  or 2. If you are not ready to accept the risks of not doing it, or 3. If the fear (of not doing it ), would nag you constantly, then get it done as per the advice of  the big guys”.

Final message

Until we acquire the courage to express our true opinion , we certainly fall under the tag of medically incompetent.

Very soon, getting a second* or even third opinion may not really matter. Doctors are silently persuaded to follow the guidelines thursted  by  big scientific syndicates along with compulsion to go with patient wish & preference.


*Caution and clarification

Second clinical opinion for helping to arrive at a medical diagnosis  is of immense value and a great thing to do. In fact, doctors themselves ask for it when they are in doubt. This article is about second opinion regarding the appropriateness of various interventional procedures that is defining modern medicine.

Read Full Post »

Decision making  for PCI in chronic CAD continues to be delicate. This is especially true, if the lesion is Intermediate and the plaque vulnerablity is susepcted.

How to tackle this stress positive Intermediate LAD lesion. Functional capacity good. Non-diabetic, mildly elevated lipids. Now, continuing medical management with intensive lipid control is the best possible management. (We have evidence for medical management being good even in significant 90% lesion) Above is a case report from https://www.acc.org/education-and-meetings/patient-case-quizzes/medical-therapy-for-cad

Reassurance is a revascularization equivalent

Sharing a similar experience with one of my patients in his early fifties. After getting a fairly convincing consultation, he accepted medical management. However, guided by both NI & AI, he sought a second opinion to confirm whether my assurance was indeed correct. He underwent FFR and OCT, and both he and his plaque became vulnerable. The FFR was normal. He was too intelligent to ask about the FFR – Stress test discordance, for which his cardiologist had no answer. Still, they did not advise a PCI and the decision was left to him, respecting the current patient-oriented guidelines.

The patient went home empowered but spent sleepless nights, fearing about potential fissures,  in the life sustaining fibrous cap.He believed that he was at the mercy of a 75-micron thin cap covering his plaque. In one of the anxious days,in the following week , he got admitted himself in a posh downtown cardiac center. A as per the guidelines, the patient chose his own pathway for a PCI. Cardiologists obliged piously to his wishes. Now, he feels better. He says he is happy to undergo a self prescribed stent.

I was glad, he had the courtesy to come back and showed the results. I learnt. it costed him 6 Lakhs and his insurance covered it fully. I realised , my 30 minutes reassurance was busted by the insurance card in few minutes. I wasn’t surprised.It’s okay, it’s all in the game. I learned it long ago. Fear* (either spontaneous or induced), the power to decide & affordability are the most powerful determinants of any inappropriate medical procedure.

Learning cardiology from UN & WHO

We have United Nations and WHO, the two global guardians. Any one with average intelligence will agree, these instituions can never bring either peace or health to this world.Let us ensure, the practice guidelines of cardiology doesn’t go that way. We boast ourselves, that we have a strongly evidence based vigorously scrutinized cardiology practice framework. How true it is ? Are we hiding behind pateint preference, and pushing  science to the  background ? Let us be transparent. I think it’s time, the powerful bodies like ACC/ESC should connect all the missing dots. .One important issue  is,  fear or anxiety-driven PCI, which usually overtakes other true indications.

Final message

In an ideal world , reassurance and GDMT , if properly done, should be a revascularization equivalent in most CAD patients .The  reality is, fear* prevails over reassurance, for a variety of reasons.

Postamble

*Anxiety thrives well, in an environment of uncertainty. It is mutually inclusive among both patients and physicians.However  most Professional physicians are expected to tackle it. Still many struggle. Patient : What if the block worsens? Physician: What if the patient comes back with an event and oh .. my pride and practice?  May be, physicians are not to be blamed much. I think. it is all about a unexplained,  biased human mind set. Even a death during an inapproproate Intervention is pardoned off, but an error, raising out of an appropriate medical mangment is rarely forgiven.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Preamble : The Lubs & Dubs

The lubs and dubs, along with some added sounds are the only language, the heart can speak in health and distress. It’s a worrying story altogether, gradually many of us are becoming “cardiac illiterates” as we struggle to read , its gentle communication. it is not our fault. Stethoscopes are reduced to become a social marker of being a doctor. We may excuse ourselves, even if we can’t differentiate a systolic from diastolic murmur, after all, hand held echo machines, instantly tell the diagnosis.

( After reading this article, fellows are expected to understand why the first heart sound in MR (ie the lubs,) are mostly soft,  some times normal or even loud in certain conditions)

Now, let us go to the mitral valve dynamics

How many of us are aware, there is a big science of physics and biology operating when the mitral valve perfectly closes at the level of the annulus, with each systole , balancing different sets of known and unknown forces.

In this article, we will see how these two sets of forces mitral valve tethering and closing forces balance out each other to seal the mitral valve and what happens when the forces begin to fight each other.

Balance of Tethering and Closing Forces in Mitral Valve Coaptation

The mitral valve (MV) coaptation refers to the edge-to-edge apposition of the anterior and posterior leaflets during systole, ensuring a competent seal to prevent regurgitation. This process is governed by a delicate balance between tethering forces (which restrain leaflet motion to prevent prolapse into the left atrium) and closing forces (which approximate the leaflets for sealing).

  • Tethering forces: These are primarily transmitted through the chordae tendineae from the papillary muscles (PMs) to the leaflet free edges and bellies, pulling the leaflets apically and laterally toward the left ventricular (LV) apex. They arise from:
  • Closing forces: These are driven by the transmitral pressure gradient during systole, where rising LV pressure (generated by LV contraction) exceeds left atrial (LA) pressure, pushing the leaflets together. The force is proportional to the LV dP/dt (rate of pressure rise) and peaks in midsystole.
  • Balancing mechanism: Coaptation occurs when closing forces overcome tethering, enabling leaflets to meet with sufficient overlap (coaptation length >8 mm typically). Imbalance favors regurgitation: excessive tethering (e.g., from PM displacement) causes apical tenting and incomplete closure; insufficient closing (e.g., low LV contractility) fails to seal the orifice. In health, the forces are synchronized with systole, with closing forces dominating midsystole to minimize the effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA).

Paradoxes in the Balancing Mechanism

MV mechanics exhibit several counterintuitive paradoxes, where adaptive or dysfunctional responses lead to outcomes opposite to expectations. These highlight the interplay of geometry, contractility, and force transmission:

  1. Paradoxical systolic PM elongation: Normally, PMs shorten during systole (1 cm) to offset annular descent and maintain annulopapillary balance. Post-myocardial infarction (MI), scarred or ischemic PMs paradoxically elongate driven by transmitral pressure tension. This decreases annulopapillary distance, attenuates tethering, and reduces MR severity—contrary to the intuition that PM weakness worsens regurgitation. However, extreme elongation risks leaflet prolapse, flipping the paradox to increased MR.
  2. PM dysfunction attenuating ischemic MR: In isolated dysfunction, reduced PM contraction intuitively increases slack chordae and prolapse risk. Yet, in localized basal inferior LV remodeling, PM dysfunction (measured as reduced longitudinal systolic strain) inversely correlates with MR fraction attenuating MR by limiting excessive tethering. This holds only with certain level of remodeling . Gross and asymmetrical remodeling can exaggerate tethering and increase the MR.
  3. Dynamic EROA reduction despite peak driving pressure: MR often peaks early systole (when closing forces are low and tethering dominates) but paradoxically decreases midsystole, even as LV pressure (driving force) maximizes. This occurs because rising closing forces (transmitral gradient) overcome tethering, shrinking the orifice mimicking reduced regurgitation when it should worsen.Thgis mechansim can some times seen when MR jet is bi-fid in doppler tracing.
  4. Imbalanced chordal forces causing focal prolapse: In acute ischemic MR (e.g., posterior wall ischemia), tethering redistributes unevenly: tension drops in ischemic-side chordae but rises on the nonischemic side causing focal tenting and relative prolapse on the ischemic commissure. This creates an eccentric jet despite global LV contraction.

This article clearly tells us that the forces acting on the mitral valve apparatus are so complex. The conceptual model of tethering and closing forces may be oversimplified. There are variable interactions between them. More importantly, the atrial forces also influence and intrude into these forces. Realize that MV competence is not just about force magnitude but their vectorial distribution and timing, often amplified by LV geometry changes.

Final message

As cardiologists and surgeons, we must realize the fact, how important it is to analyze both anatomy and the physiological impact when we rush to clip, cut, or repair it with annuloplasty and subvalvular interventions.

*Sometimes, it might even be tempting to do mitral valve replacement, even when it is not indicated, because we need not bother about all these dizzy mechanics and physics of MR jet forces.

Read Full Post »

It is predicted, (or already happening ) atleast 30 % of clinical consults happen with AI assistsnce or with completely with machines.

The Initial work up is suggested by the AI bots, even in ER rooms. They may be right in 80% of times. But, who is it to filter and grab those remaining 20%. No one , except a astutely learnt clinician. Unfortunately, there is no super AI to do this job.

Final message

This is the beginning of, a new exciting & dangerous era, for the medical profession. If we are not vigilant or loose our common sense, these bots will soon reach their next destination, ie patient’s bed side.

Reference

BMJ in its current Issue address these  aspects of increasing AI usage in the clinical consults

1. Clinical competencies for using generative AI in patient care BMJ 2025; 391 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-085324 

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-085324

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »