See on Scoop.it – Cardiovascular Disease: PHARMACO-THERAPY
This is one of those “good news, but” medical stories.
New treatments for heart failure have made it much less likely that people with this chronic condition will die suddenly.
But an analysis by researchers at UCLA finds that the death rate for people with advanced heart failure remains stubbornly high, with 30 percent of people dying within three years.
“They’re not dying suddenly, but their disease is still progressing,” says Dr. Tamara Horwich, an assistant professor of medicine at UCLA and a co-author of the study, which was published inCirculation Heart Failure.
Still, that’s a lot better than 50 years ago, when heart failure patients were pretty much sent home to die. Heart failure has many causes, including heart attack, diabetes, high blood pressure and viral infections. But the effect is the same: a heart that doesn’t move blood effectively.
About 6 million people in the United States have heart failure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is the primary cause of 55,000 deaths a year.
In the past 20 years, medical care for heart failure has changed radically, with new medications and devices. Horwich and her colleagues wanted to see if these advances were helping patients in the real world.
The people in this study were referred the UCLA center in their early 50s, on average; this is not a disease just for the old. The study looked at 2,500 patients who had been treated at UCLA from 1993 to 2010.
They found that three drugs — ACE inhibitors, beta blockers, and aldosterone antagonists — had been widely adopted for treatment of heart failure between 1993 and 2010. At the same time, the number of people with implanted automatic heart defibrillators went from 11 percent to 68 percent. The implanted defibrillators correct abnormal heart rhythms, a big cause of sudden death.
Death rates were 42 percent lower for patients in the most recent treatment group, between 2005 and 2010, than for the patients in the 1990s. That was largely due to a drop in sudden cardiac deaths.
But deaths from progressive heart failure remained high, with 31 percent of patients dying in the latter part of the study, compared to 36 percent in the 1990s. People could be coming to UCLA sicker than in years past, Horvich speculates, having survived heart attacks and other problems that would have killed them in the past.
But it could also be because those people are ending up on implantable ventricular assist pumps or getting heart transplants, very expensive treatments that are difficult for many people to tolerate.
“We’re not curing the disease,” Horvich tells Shots. “We’re delaying the inevitable.” And that means, she says, that “we still have a lot of hard work ahead of us” in finding ways to prevent and treat heart failure.
See on www.npr.org
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.