
New Insights Into Older Hearts
It turns out that the Isley Brothers, who sang that 1966 Motown hit 'This Old Heart of Mine (Is Weak for You),' were onto something when they linked age to an aching and flagging heart.
Heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death and disability, has been diagnosed in about 6 percent of Americans ages 45 to 64, but in more than 18 percent of those over 65, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Old hearts are physiologically different. 'The heart gets stiffer as we age,' said Dr. John Dodson, director of the geriatric cardiology program at NYU Langone Health. 'It doesn't fill with blood as easily. The muscles don't relax as well.'
Age also changes the blood vessels, which can grow rigid and cause hypertension, and the nerve fibers that send electrical impulses to the heart. It affects other organs and systems that play a role in cardiovascular health, too. 'After age 75 is when things accelerate,' Dr. Dodson said.
But in recent years, dramatic improvements in treatments for many kinds of cardiovascular conditions have helped reduce both heart attacks and cardiac deaths.
'Cardiology has been blessed with a lot of progress and research and drug development,' said Dr. Karen Alexander, who teaches geriatric cardiology at Duke University. 'The medications are better than ever, and we know how to use them better.'
That can complicate decision-making for heart patients in their 70s and beyond, however. Certain procedures or regimens may not markedly extend the lives of older patients or improve the quality of their remaining years, especially if they have already suffered heart attacks and are contending with other illnesses as well.
'We don't need to open an artery just because there's an artery to be opened,' said Dr. Alexander, referring to inserting a stent. 'We need to think of the whole person.'
Recent research indicates that some frequently used medical approaches don't pay off for older patients, while too few of them take advantage of one intervention that does.
Here's some of what researchers are learning about old hearts:
An implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or I.C.D., is a small battery-powered device that is placed under the skin and delivers a shock in the case of sudden cardiac arrest. 'It's easy to sell these things to patients,' said Dr. Daniel Matlock, a geriatrician and researcher at the University of Colorado. 'You say, 'This can prevent sudden cardiac death.' The patient says, 'That sounds great.''
In 2005, an influential study persuaded Medicare to cover I.C.D.s in patients with heart failure, even those without high-risk arrhythmias, and 'it just took off,' Dr. Matlock said.
From 2015 through September 2024, surgeons implanted 585,000 such devices in patients' chests, according to the American College of Cardiology's registry. That's probably an undercount, as not all hospitals participate in the registry.
But in 2017, among patients with nonischemic heart failure (meaning that the heart isn't pumping effectively but there is no blocked artery), another influential study showed that I.C.D.s did not reduce mortality for patients over 70. The device only prevented sudden cardiac deaths, the authors noted — and those occur more frequently in younger patients.
Moreover, 'at 85 or 90, sudden death is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen,' Dr. Matlock said, compared to death from 'progressive heart failure, which can go quickly or last for years; it's unpredictable.' The wallop of an I.C.D. shock can also frighten and distress older patients, who often are unaware that the device can be deactivated with a computer.
Cardiologists and researchers still debate how much I.C.D.s benefit older patients. But because cardiac drugs have grown so much more potent since 2005, a major multisite study is underway to determine, among patients at lower risk of sudden death, whether medications alone might now be more effective.
Medications alone already appear to be at least as effective in treating older people who have suffered the kind of heart attacks not caused by a suddenly and completely blocked artery. (Technically these are referred to as NSTEMI, for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.)
Half of these occur in people over 70, said Dr. Vijay Kunadian, a professor of interventional cardiology at Newcastle University in England and the lead author of a recent study in The New England Journal of Medicine.
'Older people often are underrepresented in research,' Dr. Kunadian said. 'There are a lot of preconceived biases.' So her team recruited an older-than-typical sample (average age 82) in which to compare the benefits of conservative and invasive treatment.
Half of the 1,500 patients in the study began a regimen of cardiac medications that included blood thinners, statins, beta blockers and ACE inhibitors. The other half had more invasive treatment, starting with an angiogram (an X-ray of the blood vessels). Then, roughly half of that group received a stent or, in much smaller numbers, underwent bypass surgery. These patients were also prescribed the same kinds of medications as the patients who were treated with drugs alone.
Over four years, the team found no difference in the patients' risk of cardiovascular death or a nonfatal heart attack. Although surgical risks generally rise with age, complications were low in both groups.
Facing such situations, older patients and their families need to ask important questions, Dr. Alexander said: 'How is this going to help me, and what are the other options, especially if it's invasive? Is it necessary? What if I don't do this?'
Dr. Kunadian agreed. 'One size does not fit all in this group,' she said. Invasive treatment did not benefit patients, but it didn't harm them, either.
Still, Dr. Kunadian said, 'if they're very frail, living in a nursing home with dementia, with a number of other conditions, it's reasonable to say it's in their best interest to use medical therapy alone.'
One intervention known to benefit patients with heart disease is cardiac rehabilitation: a program of regular, supervised exercise that significantly reduces heart attacks, hospitalization and cardiovascular deaths.
But cardiac rehab remains perennially underused. Only about one-quarter of eligible patients participate, Dr. Dodson said, and among older adults, who could benefit even more, the proportion is lower still.
'There are barriers for people in the 70s and 80s,' he said. They have to show up at a facility to exercise, so sometimes 'transportation is a problem.'
And, he added, 'people can get deconditioned or afraid of activity. They may worry about falling.'
The in-person NYU Langone program involves three exercise sessions a week for three months, with nutritional and psychological counseling. Since enrollment among seniors had been disappointing, researchers tried replicating it with a remote program.
They offered it to patients (average age 71) with ischemic heart disease (caused by narrowed arteries, which impede blood and oxygen flow to the heart) who had suffered a heart attack or undergone a stent procedure. Each received a tablet computer and broadband access so that they could undertake a rehab program at home. An exercise therapist checked in by phone weekly.
At-home participation fell off over time, however. After three months, those assigned to remote rehab showed no greater functional capacity — measured by how far they could walk in six minutes — than a similar group who followed the usual care.
Was that because seniors struggled with the technology? Or feared exercising with heart problems? Would working out in person, alongside others on treadmills and elliptical trainers, inspire more engagement?
'We need to figure out the delivery system that's most effective,' Dr. Dodson said. 'What's most motivating for older patients?' He'll be trying again.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Global Healthy Living Foundation Peer-Reviewed Research Shows Hidden Risks of the Inflation Reduction Act's Drug Pricing Reform
Report reveals potential for higher patient costs, worse health outcomes despite lower "fair prices" UPPER NYACK, N.Y., June 10, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Global Healthy Living Foundation (GHLF) has launched a research-backed public education campaign to raise awareness about the unintended consequences of drug pricing reforms under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This initiative stems from a recent peer-reviewed paper co-authored by GHLF's Chief Science Policy Officer, Dr. Robert Popovian, Pharm.D., MS, published in the Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research (JHEOR). It includes a podcast episode, an infographic, and an article aimed at informing patients, caregivers, and policymakers. "The IRA's "maximum fair price" (MFP) policy was designed to reduce out-of-pocket costs for Medicare patients. However, it may lead to the opposite: higher out-of-pocket costs and increased health risks for vulnerable patients," report author Dr. Popovian says "By suppressing the retail price, CMS is reducing the profit margins and revenue for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which is good. Predictably, the PBMs will not stand pat—they can shift the drug to a higher formulary tier, where patients will pay more out-of-pocket to acquire the medicine so the PBM can protect its profit margin," said Dr. Popovian in a recent episode of GHLF's Healthcare Matters podcast. The study specifically modeled outcomes for two widely used blood thinners, Eliquis and Xarelto. If PBMs reclassify these drugs to higher cost tiers to compensate for lost profit, patients could face an estimated $688 million more in out-of-pocket costs. This cost-shift could result in over 320,000 patients abandoning treatment, potentially leading to 145,000 major cardiovascular events and up to 97,000 deaths. "This research underscores a serious gap in how drug pricing reforms are being implemented and monitored," said Dr. Popovian. "Without proper oversight and transparency, policies that were meant to help patients could end up hurting them." The GHLF education campaign includes: A peer-reviewed paper published in JHEOR: "Could the Inflation Reduction Act Maximum Fair Price Hurt Patients?" A patient-friendly article: "Lower Prices, Higher Risk: How Drug Reform Could Backfire on Patients" published on GHLF's website and supported by social media A special podcast episode of Healthcare Matters, co-hosted by Dr. Popovian A downloadable infographic explaining the findings at-a-glance "This campaign is not about politics—it's about patients," said Seth Ginsberg, GHLF Co-Founder and President. "We want people to understand what's at stake when reforms don't account for the full complexity of our health care system." GHLF encourages policymakers, journalists, and patient advocates to explore these resources and consider how reforms like the IRA impact access to critical medications. About GHLF The Global Healthy Living Foundation is a U.S. based, 501(c)(3) nonprofit, international organization whose mission is to improve the quality of life for people with chronic illnesses by advocating for improved access to health care through education, patient-centered clinical research, support, advocacy, and economic and policy research. GHLF is also a staunch advocate for vaccines. The Global Healthy Living Foundation is the parent organization of CreakyJoints®, the international, digital community for millions of people living with arthritis and their supporters worldwide who seek education, support, activism, and patient-centered research in English, Spanish, and French. In addition to arthritis and autoimmune disorders, GHLF supports dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, cardiology, oncology, infectious disease, rare disease, and pulmonary patients through a host of different programs and activities which draw more than 700,000 patients a month to GHLF websites and create more than 10 million impressions a month on seven social media platforms. In 2024, GHLF had more than 1 million views and listens with its patient-centered audio-visual content, found on YouTube and podcast platforms. GHLF never asks the public for donations, receiving funding instead through governments, non-governmental organizations, foundations, industry, family foundations, and GHLF Co-Founder Louis Tharp. Visit for more information. View source version on Contacts Louis Tharpltharp@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.


Business Wire
an hour ago
- Business Wire
Global Healthy Living Foundation Peer-Reviewed Research Shows Hidden Risks of the Inflation Reduction Act's Drug Pricing Reform
UPPER NYACK, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Global Healthy Living Foundation (GHLF) has launched a research-backed public education campaign to raise awareness about the unintended consequences of drug pricing reforms under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This initiative stems from a recent peer-reviewed paper co-authored by GHLF's Chief Science Policy Officer, Dr. Robert Popovian, Pharm.D., MS, published in the Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research (JHEOR). It includes a podcast episode, an infographic, and an article aimed at informing patients, caregivers, and policymakers. they can shift the drug to a higher price tier where patients will pay more out-of-pocket Share 'The IRA's 'maximum fair price' (MFP) policy was designed to reduce out-of-pocket costs for Medicare patients. However, it may lead to the opposite: higher out-of-pocket costs and increased health risks for vulnerable patients,' report author Dr. Popovian says 'By suppressing the retail price, CMS is reducing the profit margins and revenue for pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), which is good. Predictably, the PBMs will not stand pat—they can shift the drug to a higher formulary tier, where patients will pay more out-of-pocket to acquire the medicine so the PBM can protect its profit margin,' said Dr. Popovian in a recent episode of GHLF's Healthcare Matters podcast. The study specifically modeled outcomes for two widely used blood thinners, Eliquis and Xarelto. If PBMs reclassify these drugs to higher cost tiers to compensate for lost profit, patients could face an estimated $688 million more in out-of-pocket costs. This cost-shift could result in over 320,000 patients abandoning treatment, potentially leading to 145,000 major cardiovascular events and up to 97,000 deaths. 'This research underscores a serious gap in how drug pricing reforms are being implemented and monitored,' said Dr. Popovian. 'Without proper oversight and transparency, policies that were meant to help patients could end up hurting them.' The GHLF education campaign includes: 'This campaign is not about politics—it's about patients,' said Seth Ginsberg, GHLF Co-Founder and President. 'We want people to understand what's at stake when reforms don't account for the full complexity of our health care system.' GHLF encourages policymakers, journalists, and patient advocates to explore these resources and consider how reforms like the IRA impact access to critical medications. About GHLF The Global Healthy Living Foundation is a U.S. based, 501(c)(3) nonprofit, international organization whose mission is to improve the quality of life for people with chronic illnesses by advocating for improved access to health care through education, patient-centered clinical research, support, advocacy, and economic and policy research. GHLF is also a staunch advocate for vaccines. The Global Healthy Living Foundation is the parent organization of CreakyJoints®, the international, digital community for millions of people living with arthritis and their supporters worldwide who seek education, support, activism, and patient-centered research in English, Spanish, and French. In addition to arthritis and autoimmune disorders, GHLF supports dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, cardiology, oncology, infectious disease, rare disease, and pulmonary patients through a host of different programs and activities which draw more than 700,000 patients a month to GHLF websites and create more than 10 million impressions a month on seven social media platforms. In 2024, GHLF had more than 1 million views and listens with its patient-centered audio-visual content, found on YouTube and podcast platforms. GHLF never asks the public for donations, receiving funding instead through governments, non-governmental organizations, foundations, industry, family foundations, and GHLF Co-Founder Louis Tharp. Visit for more information.