NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

The SHAPE of medical guideline-setting sausage-making

Posted By

Tags

It’s not pretty watching sausage being made. Larry Husten of Cardiobrief.org provides a peek at the process – as seen in new and controversial cardiovascular prevention guidelines:

“The Society for Heart Attack Prevention and Eradication (SHAPE) has announced the formation of a new task force “to refine and update” its earlier published guidelines.

The earlier guidelines, when published in a supplement to the American Journal of Cardiology, were not endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, or the National Heart Lung & Blood Institute, and received a mixed response from the cardiology community. A typical response came from Robert Califf, who told heartwire: “It’s an opinion, it’s not a guideline that’s been vetted through any kind of ecumenical group of people who have any official standing to make clinical-practice guidelines. There’s enough evidence to have an opinion about this; I don’t think there’s enough evidence to have a policy about it. It’s an interesting idea and it could be right. Then again, it may not be right.”

A further complicating factor is the role of SHAPE’s founder and current chairman, Morteza Naghavi, who has numerous financial interests in technologies and devices that stand to benefit from SHAPE policies and the Texas legislation.

On the other hand, the AJC supplement was introduced by a prominent cardiologist, Valentin Fuster, and co-authors of the guidelines included such leading figures as PK Shah, Pam Douglas, Sanjay Kaul, and others. Many cardiologists, though critical of SHAPE and its methods,nevertheless broadly support efforts to identify people at high risk for MI.

The SHAPE press release announcing the new Task Force (see below) takes no note of the controversy and calls the publication “a major breakthrough in preventive cardiology.” The press release also refers to a bill passed last year in Texas that requires reimbursement for heart attack screening, but does not mention that the bill was actively supported and promoted by SHAPE, and that SHAPE was widely criticized for its role in promoting the legislation.”

Husten also includes links to previous Cardiobrief coverage of SHAPE and the full SHAPE news release. From that news release, perhaps the most controversial section was this:

“…the wider use of atherosclerosis tests has improved the affordability of the procedures. In major U.S. cities patients pay approximately $100 to have their coronary artery calcium score (CACS) measured by CT scan or carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and carotid plaque measured by ultrasonography. And progress is being made to persuade insurance companies to cover the costs of such preventive screening tests in the interests of public health and prevention. In 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed the nation’s first heart Attack Preventive Screening Bill into law requiring insurance reimbursement for the tests.”

You might also like

Comments

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Comments are closed.