Allison Webel, PhD – The Early Career Voice

In defense of peer review

May 1, 2020May 1, 2020 Allison Webel, PhD

The generation of knowledge, through rigorous, established systematic methods has informed much of our progress in the past few centuries. Science guides all aspects of healthcare today including how we develop the new medications, therapeutic procedures, and non-pharmacological interventions that have improved the quality and duration of human life. Many of the crucial gates in the scientific journey- funding, ethical approval, and dissemination- are guarded by the process of peer review; a process that is increasing under attack in our current hyper-reactive, digital, media cycle.

Peer review is the critical appraisal of a scientific work by those who have requisite knowledge to evaluate one or more aspects of the work. It is a panel of experts in the related field who understand the importance and novelty of the questions under consideration and the rigor and trustworthiness of the methods proposed or employed to answer that question.

Peer review takes time. Time to find agreeable reviewers with the right expertise, time to review and think about the science, and time to determine how to weigh those critiques against the community’s need for information. From the early days of the novel coronavirus pandemic, this balance of time needed for peer review and unquenchable public thirst for rigorous information has been dominating the conversations at leading medical and scientific journals around the world. To better understand how these decisions are made and what we as clinicians, scientists, and health care consumers need to consider when reading and sharing emerging science, I spoke with Dr. Joseph Hill, the Editor in Chief of Circulation one of 12 AHA Journals.

Even though peer review is an established practice, it is important to start by questioning why we should even do it. Unquestionably, the value of thoughtful peer review is that it enhances the quality of the science. “We [the AHA journals)\] handle approximately 20,000 manuscripts a year and with extraordinarily rare exceptions, the paper always gets better with peer review”.

Having now published many of my own scientific manuscripts, I know the pain of peer review well. “They” missed that detail on line 176. “They” clearly lack the expertise to evaluate my work. “They” kept this manuscript for 8 months before sending their disposition! However, I also know that some of the best revisions to my papers have come from generous peer reviewers. Reviewers who volunteered to spend their time reading my papers and think deeply about my findings in the context of larger literature. While painful, the constant assessment and evaluation of our science is critical to improving the quality and impact of our work.

Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, up to 10 experts, including peer reviewers, statisticians, and editors, would review a manuscript for Circulation. But the need for up-to-date information about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of COVID-19 challenged Circulation’s editorial team to move fast. While recognizing that it’s “hard to do good science in a war zone”, the quality of published science cannot be compromised in times of crisis. Dr. Hill continues, “We are walking a fine line between trying to get the information out as quickly as possible but we recognize that [in clinical science] we could make it worse and could do harm. So we have to maintain our high standards but function at a high velocity.”

High velocity seems an understatement. After an initial call for high-quality COVID-19 related papers, the editorial team has done over 300 fast track reviews, contributed to a curated coronavirus and cardiovascular disease collection, and conducted 17 interviews with experts working on the front line around the world. All in the past month. This work is exhausting but done with great energy by a team inspired to advance “cardiovascular science for the good of humanity, especially during these times of urgent challenge, anxiety, and forthright resolve.”

Peer review is the best process we have for evaluating science; but peer review is done by peers- busy, human, distractible peers- who will make mistakes. This is why many reputable journals require an editorial screen and at least two peer reviews before it can make a decision on a manuscript. Scientific volunteers do this work. Which brings us to what you, as an early career professional can do. Peer review relies on us—all of us—to sign up to review, accept the invitation to review, and spend the time carefully doing the review. You may wonder if you have the expertise to peer review for Circulation or another AHA Journal; you likely do and you should. Dr. Hill remarked that “some of the best reviews I’ve seen are from early-career scientists”. If you are interested in helping to contribute to peer review and the sharing of good cardiovascular science, considering signing up to be a journal reviewer in your AHA Science Volunteer Form or emailing Dr. Hill your interest in reviewing for Circulation.

“The views, opinions and positions expressed within this blog are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the American Heart Association. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with them. The Early Career Voice blog is not intended to provide medical advice or treatment. Only your healthcare provider can provide that. The American Heart Association recommends that you consult your healthcare provider regarding your personal health matters. If you think you are having a heart attack, stroke or another emergency, please call 911 immediately.”

When the band stops….

March 19, 2020March 19, 2020 Allison Webel, PhD

If you don’t normally read my Early Career columns you should know two things about me to understand the context of this piece: 1) I am a nurse and 2) My day job is as a researcher examining how to improve heart health in adults living with HIV.

The first time I heard of HIV was when my middle school health teacher played the movie “And the Band Played On”. If you haven’t seen the film or read the book, it’s the story of early years of the HIV crisis in America. Yes, it’s about the intersection on politics and health in the face of an unknown virus spreading among marginalized and vulnerable people. But it’s also about how scientists, health care professionals, advocates, and people from all walks of life come together to create a groundswell of tangible support and change for those infected with and affected by HIV.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this film these days in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. When every day I wake up wondering what the headlines will be and every song on the radio, speech, and swing of the stock market seems fraught with apocalyptic symbolism. There is a pervasive, and understandable, fear of the unknown, desire for control, and for some an insidious need to blame others for disease. And then there is the grief. The grief not only for those who have and will succumb to this virus. But the widely felt grief that life will never be the same as it was before COVID-19 came into our consciousness. It reminds me of how patients and caregivers have described the early years of the HIV epidemic.

But in the 40 years since the HIV epidemic what have we learned that can help us today? I’d also love to hear your thoughts on this but here those I’ve been thinking about.

Trust science. It’s a very human instinct to believe in quick cures and conspiracy theories but the only thing that will help us understand how to prevent, mitigate, and treat COVID-19 is science. Science is a careful, systematic, data-driven and rigorous process by which hypotheses are developed, tested, refined and re-tested until we have the answer. This is how we developed the first HIV tests and highly effective HIV medications, and it is also how we are slowly inching forward towards an HIV vaccine. This is how we are now developing a test for COVID-19, how we will develop treatments, and eventually how we will develop a vaccine. Do your best to ignore any advice, product, or theory you hear that is not grounded in the scientific method and widely shared by reputable scientists.
Be kind. People are going to say and do things you don’t agree with a lot over the next few months. People are going to be stressed out with new family, work, financial and social pressures. We are undoubtedly going to be asked to give more up than we have had to give in maybe a generation. Some of us are going to have to work more hours than we thought possible (at least since work hour restrictions were enacted). So, while it’s going to be hard, we need to take extra care to be kind to one another—to say kind things; restrict the sarcasm, judgment and unsolicited advice (in person and on social media); drive a little more calmly; and simply find ways to share kindness to your family, community, team, and neighbors at a responsible distance.
The band is more than the conductor. To get through this pandemic, we will need to draw on the skill sets of many. We need those skilled laborers who work to manufacture personal protective equipment, delivery teams who make sure the equipment gets where it needs to go, we need people to sanitize and stock grocery stores, we need musicians and artists to remind us to see the beauty in the world around us, and telecommunications staff to make sure the internet works. And in health care settings—the epicenter of the pandemic—we need food service workers, respiratory therapists, housekeeping staff, administrators, pharmacists, social workers, schedulers, faith leaders, nurses, advanced practice professionals, and physicians. They are part of a health care machine that will keep us safe and ensure that many of us never see the worst of this disease. Few chose these jobs anticipating high salaries, professional autonomy, or glory, and many will not be publically acclaimed as heroes for their critical contribution during this time. But like all front line soldiers, they deserve our respect, honesty, protection and acknowledgment; and we must encourage those who are leading during this time to recognize this valuable work.

The title “And The Band Plays On” refers to a society that by and large ignored the early AIDS epidemic which led to increased transmission of HIV and countless deaths. Despite some similarly notable fumbles by political leaders, the COVID-19 epidemic is not the early HIV/AIDS epidemic. In the span of less than a week, hundreds of millions of people in the United States and around the globe have listened, learned, and stopped in an effort to decrease transmission and reduce deaths. We don’t yet know if these actions will work, and we may never fully understand their impact. That we collectively acted (or in this case stopped acting) tells me that we will weather the next few months as long as we do so together.

The Health Costs of Hunger Part 2: What we can do about it

March 12, 2020March 12, 2020 Allison Webel, PhD

If you read my February blog, you know that food insecurity is a complex and overwhelming issue in the United States. In 2018, 37.2 million Americans were food insecure and of that, 6 million were children. The health consequences of food insecurity are significant and contribute to growing rates of chronic disease American’s have experienced in the past few decades. With recent changes to programs such as the supplemental nutritional assistance program (or SNAP), more Americans are at risk for becoming food insecure.

The lack of stable access to adequate safe food affects a persons’ health and well-being in profound ways. And as health care providers used to acting, we want to do something about food insecurity in our communities. But what can be done and where to start? To answer these critical questions, I spoke with Alissa Glenn, consultant of food as medicine program at the Greater Cleveland Food Bank, who offered this advice.

Acknowledge that food insecurity is pervasive and talk about it. Hunger affects people of every gender, age, race and ethnicity throughout the United States. Yet, an important reason people often do not pursue supportive programs such as SNAP, is the longstanding stigma around assistance. One of the best ways to break this stigma is by talking openly and compassionately about food insecurity in your community.
Educate yourself and your colleagues. My February blog, had a lot of scientific resources on food insecurity hyperlinked. Last year, the AHA published a science advisory on innovative strategies to create a healthy and sustainable food system that can provide useful context. In addition, lay resources such as the Feeding America website and books like Stuffed and Starved can help explain this complex issue. Finally, consider inviting your local food bank to conduct a continuing education or a Grand Rounds session on addressing food insecurity in clinical settings. They can describe local resources in your own community and practice poverty simulations to help healthcare providers feel more comfortable discussing food insecurity with patients.
Ask your patients about it. Screening for food insecurity is recommended by groups such as the American Association of Pediatrics which suggests incorporating such a screening at every patient visit. I know, we have to fit so much into each patient encounter that trying to fit in one more thing seems impossible. But a quick, simple strategy is to administer the Hunger Vital Sign™ (Left Insert).

It can be hard for patients to acknowledge they are food insecure so helping them feel comfortable can result in more honest answers. Best practices include asking screening questions after the patient has been with the provider for a while, having a team member with a longstanding relationship ask screening questions, and if possible, to ask them via tablet or computer to reduce awkwardness.

Refer patients and family members who are food insecure and may need immediate help to local resources. This can include local food pantries, produce distribution sites, hot meals, and perhaps, onsite therapeutic food clinics. If your clinical setting is lucky enough to have to have a registered dietitian, involve them in developing a list of local resources to be distributed to patients. Case managers and outreach workers can also provide patients resources about short and long-term support for food insecurity. To find a food bank near you, please check out the Feeding America
Advocate for anti-hunger programs. SNAP is the first line of defense against food insecurity. For every meal that a food bank provides, SNAP provides 9 meals. As the largest effort to address hunger in the U.S., changes to this program that reduce eligibility or benefits will increase the number of hungry Americans. Working with your community and engaging with your elected officials about how hunger influences the health care you provide are powerful ways to advocate for their continued support. To find out more about advocating for SNAP and the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act, please review the Advocating for a Hunger-Free America
Use your professional associations. As healthcare professionals, we have a powerful voice. Every day we talk with dozens of patients and family members about how to improve their health and well-being. As you get more comfortable talking with your patients talking about food insecurity, you will likely hear stories about how hunger affects their health. Work with your professional associations to collect those stories and with one voice advocate for changes in practice, education, and policy.

Last month, the AHA released its 2030 Impact Goal. This ambitious statement recognized the importance of structural changes to achieve a world of more equitable, longer, healthier lives. It creates a framework from which professional organizations can harness the energy and experience of its members to initiate conversations about food insecurity, incorporate food insecurity education into the training of providers, increase food insecurity screening in clinical settings, and use the collective voice of 40 million volunteers and members to effectively advocate for anti-hunger programs.

There are many ways you can work with the AHA to reduce food insecurity in America. Consider working with your scientific council to propose a scientific statement on the effects of food insecurity on cardiovascular health, propose a workshop on clinical food insecurity protocols at a Scientific Sessions meeting, or write an editorial on your experiences helping a patient with food insecurity. The enormity of hunger in America, and its deleterious effects on the health of our patients, can be overwhelming. But even small steps such as reading a book on food insecurity, screening patients in your clinic, or advocating for structural change, can be powerful ways to help to reduce food insecurity.

The Health Costs of Hunger

January 31, 2020January 31, 2020 Allison Webel, PhD

I hope someday we will be able to proclaim that we have banished hunger in the United States, and that we’ve been able to bring nutrition and health to the whole world. –Senator George McGovern

Food. Nothing is more basic to our existence than eating. However, in our modern era of plenty, we often take the presence of food for granted. That is, we take it for granted until we no longer have access to it or it makes us sick.

Food insecurity, when individuals lack access to adequate and safe food due to limited resources, is pervasive in the United States. In 2018, 37.2 million Americans were food insecure and of that, 6 million were children. A recent analysis found that 20-50% of college students were food insecure and hunger affects their ability to learn, be economically stable, and navigate social situations. While food insecurity tends to be higher in rural areas, it affects people of every gender, age, race and ethnicity throughout the United States.

The health consequences of food insecurity are well-described and have a disproportionate impact on cardiovascular health. In children, food insecurity is associated with birth defects, cognitive and behavioral problems, increased rates of asthma, depression, suicide ideation, and an increased risk of hospitalization. In adults, food insecurity is linked to mental health problems, diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Food insecurity affects health in multiple ways (Figure 1). Conceived of as a cyclical process (in which people have periods fluctuating between food adequacy and inadequacy), fewer dietary options lead to increased consumption of cheap, energy dense, but nutritionally poor foods. Over-consumption of these foods during periods of food adequacy can lead to weight gain and high blood sugar, and reduced consumption of food during food shortages can lead to weight loss and low blood sugar. These cycles are exacerbated by stress and result in obesity, high blood pressure, and ultimately diabetes and coronary artery disease. The cycle continues until access to adequate, safe, high-nutrition foods stabilizes.

As a driver of poor nutritional intake, food insecurity is among the leading causes of chronic disease-related morbidity. As such, there is increasing recognition that for many food insecurity is not behavioral challenge but a structural one. Indeed this is the reason for the creation and continued re-authorization of the supplemental nutritional assistance program (or SNAP) that in 2018 provided $60.8 billion to more than 40 million Americans. SNAP was initially conceived during the Great Depression as a strategy to stave off mass starvation while providing American farmers with a fair price for their surplus agricultural products. It has gone through many legislative and administrative updates since the 1930’s (for a full history, please see Dr. Marion Nestle’s recent review in the American Journal of Public Health) and today remains the 3^rd largest, and one of the most effective anti-hunger programs in the United States. Yet, despite its success at reducing food insecurity, today, proposals to reduce the monthly benefit levels and impose restrictions to limit access to SNAP are gaining political traction. If the proposed SNAP reforms were enacted, 2.2 million American households would no longer be eligible for SNAP and an additional 3.1 million households would receive reduced benefits–many of those affected would be elderly and disabled. Thus, the cycle of food insecurity and chronic disease would worsen.

Food nourishes us and provides the sustenance we need to get through each day with our health, livelihood, and dignity intact. While I have outlined the public health case for mitigating food insecurity; it is clear that food insecurity is not just a health issue, or even just a political issue. Above all else, it is a moral issue and one that we that we cannot be on the fence on. We must decide if today, in the richest country on the planet, at its most prosperous time in history, our friends, patients, and neighbors – men, women, and children who are just like us – should be hungry.

If your answer is no, then thankfully there is much that we can do about it. Check back for next month’s blog on strategies that health care providers, neighbors, citizens, and professional associations can do to help address food insecurity in America. In the meantime, please share your experiences addressing food insecurity in your own practice or community with me at @AllisonWebelPhD.

How to Celebrate the Year of the Nurse

January 2, 2020January 2, 2020 Allison Webel, PhD

Full disclosure. I am nurse. A proud nurse. I am a nurse because the strongest, kindest, and most adventurous women I knew when I was growing up were nurses. And throughout the course of my nursing career, I have been repeatedly reminded that nurses are privileged to experience some of the most distressing times in a person’s life alongside them – and to expertly help them through it.

My love for my chosen profession is one of the reasons I celebrate the World Health Organization declaring 2020 The Year of the Nurse and Midwife. This official recognition of the pivotal role that nurses, around the globe, have in creating healthier lives for all people regardless of their age, sex, or social status. As countries and health care rapidly evolved during the 20^th-21^st centuries, fewer people died from maternal and child illness and infectious diseases and today cardiovascular disease is one of the biggest killers of adults around the globe. The type of cardiovascular disease varies in different global settings- we see more ischemic heart disease in more developed countries and more hypertensive heart disease and cardiomyopathies in low income countries. Yet, despite the differing types of cardiovascular disease, in every corner of the globe nurses are helping people prevent, manage, and recover from cardiovascular disease.

There are more than 12 million cardiovascular nurses around the globe making them the largest discipline promoting cardiovascular health. Decades of evidence demonstrate that nurses have a critical role in promoting high-quality, cost effective care to improve cardiovascular health. As Leonie Rose Bovino, PhD, APRN, FAHA – Nurse Practitioner at Yale New Haven Hospital Outpatient Cardiology – states “Much of the premature cardiovascular morality is due to modifiable factors and nurses excel at building a rapport and establishing shared decision-making with patients about their health. This allows them to have an integral, immense and important role in decreasing CVD mortality.”

Francis Njoroge and his team at the Cardiac Care Unit at Moi Teaching & Referral Hospital in Eldoret, Kenya.

Nurses and nurse practitioners use this rapport to manage hypertension and high cholesterol; provide smoking cessation, diabetes and nutrition counselling; facilitate patients completing cardiac rehabilitation; and help manage the distressing symptoms of heart failure. And when nothing more can be done, nurses are there to help patients die with the comfort and dignity they deserve—holding hands, crying with family, and comforting those who don’t know what tomorrow will bring.

Francis Njoroge (pictured left) is the Nursing Officer-in-Charge at the Cardiac Care Unit at the Moi Teaching & Referral Hospital in Eldoret, Kenya. He provides care to patients with rheumatic heart disease, infective endocarditis, and heart failure. He helps them understand how to prevent complications from these conditions, conducts home visits after their discharge, and counsels both patients and their family members about their “ongoing disease process, adherence to medication, dietary habits and lifestyle modification”. Like Dr. Rose Bovino, Francis’ role as a nurse and a leader is big and diverse, and sometimes complicated by familiar challenges – patients being unable to buy necessary medicines, high acuity patients, not enough time with patients, and too few hospital beds. But despite these challenges, Francis and Dr. Rose Bovino chose their profession because they wanted a challenging career – one that would allow them to make a difference in people’s daily lives and, themselves, to be changed by the patients and their own stories. Asked what he wants young people to know about nursing, Francis states, “Nursing is a career that helps a person save lives, brings happiness to individuals and their families, and comfort to those in need. Despite being a challenging job, it’s very interesting and makes a difference in people’s lives. I would encourage young people to join us, and join nurses everywhere, in making a difference in their own communities”.

Many of the readers of this blog will be nurses, and many will not. But no matter what your profession is, chances are you know a nurse. So this year, ask the nurses you know about their stories. Why did they choose nursing? Why do they continue to be a nurse? What would make it easier for them to provide the best quality nursing care possible? Listen to them. Let their stories change how you think about your own health, or your work, or your relationships. Let them inspire you to be stronger, kinder, bolder, and seek out adventure in your right. Because when we recognize the pivotal role that nurses have in our community, we recognize the best of all of us. And I hope that recognition lasts long after the Year of Nurse and Midwife concludes.

The views, opinions and positions expressed within this blog are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the American Heart Association. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with them. The Early Career Voice blog is not intended to provide medical advice or treatment. Only your healthcare provider can provide that. The American Heart Association recommends that you consult your healthcare provider regarding your personal health matters. If you think you are having a heart attack, stroke or another emergency, please call 911 immediately.

It’s a small, small world…

November 17, 2019November 26, 2019 Allison Webel, PhD

It is probably fair to say that most of the #AHA19 attendees know that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in their respective country. We’ve heard this fact repeatedly throughout our entire careers and its hard (but not impossible) to imagine this not being the case.

But we also know how much progress we have made in preventing and treating cardiovascular disease. Medications to reduce hypertension and hyperlipidemia are relatively inexpensive and available; there is widespread recognition of, and repeated UN commitments, to enhancing access to primary prevention strategies such as physical activity, better diet quality, and smoking cessation; and new evidence suggests that we can prevent heart attacks by medication alone in patients with some at-risk patients.

cvd reality Yet, we may not always recognize that those at risk for cardiovascular disease in other parts of the world have challenges that don’t allow for equitable access to the benefits of this knowledge. Which is why I was delighted to see so many sessions on global cardiovascular disease at #AHA19. To kick off this programming, the World Heart Federation and the American Heart Association hosted a panel of Dr. Thomas Gaziano of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Dr. Rita Kalyani of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Dr. Dorairaj Prabhakaran of the World Heart Federation. Together, they described the rapidly growing burden of cardiovascular disease; potential technological innovations for controlling cardiovascular risk factors in low and middle income countries; the increasing prevalence of shared risk factors with, and consequences of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases; and health system interventions to reduce cardiovascular morbidity. While this session highlighted challenges many low- and middle-income countries face in improving cardiovascular health including shortages of a trained healthcare workforce, inconsistent access to safe essential medicines, and more. It also provoked optimism because solutions are within our reach. Dr. Gaziano said that these strategies are “More about changing the mindset [of healthcare systems] to embrace chronic disease management rather than acute care or emergency needs only”.

Such a mindset was described by Dr. Craig Sable of Children’s National Medical Center during the T. Duckett Jones Memorial Lecture , who described the progress made in prevention, screening, and management of rheumatic heart disease around the globe. He concluded by saying that the end of rheumatic heart disease is within our reach, if we maintain the momentum of our recent gains.

I am impressed by the global cardiovascular programming at 2019 American Heart Association Scientific Sessions. And we still have two more days.

Some highlights include Sunday’s Bongai Mayosi Memorial Lecture on Disparities in Global Cardiovascular Disease, honoring a true legend in the field of global cardiology. Simultaneously, there will be an oral abstracts session on Implementation Science around Globe. The Presidential Keynote Address will be given by Murat Sönmez of the World Economic Forum… and so much more (search “world” in your AHA sessions planner).

Recognition of our shared commitment to be a relentless force for a world full of healthier lives is humbling. It inspires a shared purpose for countless health care professionals-from community health workers to ministers of health in every nation throughout the globe.

So as you listen to members of the World Economic Forum and engage with scientists about their work on biomass fuel on cardiac function in Nepali women or women living with Rheumatic Heart Disease in Uganda please stop, take a deep breath, and think about how you will be a force for global good.

What if? Making the most of your 72 hours at #AHA19

November 12, 2019November 26, 2019 Allison Webel, PhD

The two most powerful words in the English language are “What If.” These words have created new nations, led to the most memorable books, and landed humans on the moon. They have also inspired almost every scientific breakthrough throughout human history. What if we could isolate radio isotypes? What if we could ultrasound the heart? What if we could transplant heart valves? What if we could create a machine to function like a heart while awaiting transplant? Each breakthrough has led to thousands of additional, and unanticipated, “What If” questions that have formed the foundation of modern cardiology and saved millions of lives.

Dreaming up “What If” questions is the first step of innovation and science is the method of rigorously answering these questions in a reproducible way. At AHA Scientific Sessions (#AHA19) this year, scientific innovation will be on display in every corner of the Philadelphia Convention Center.

In many ways, the entire Health Tech and Innovation Summit is the result of “What If” questions. What if we use artificial intelligence to identify those at risk for heart attacks? What if my K award results in a new Blood Pressure device that can be commercialized? What if we can use our smart watches to detect Atrial Fibrillation? And after smart watches, sensors, medical records and artificial intelligence have been harnessed to their full potential, what nascent technology will next revolutionize cardiovascular health? To find the answers to these questions, and three days’ worth of cutting edge discoveries, please join us in the Health Innovation pavilion, Heart Hub, Science and Technology Hall, Level 2.

And to be truly inspired, please add the AHA competition for best artificial intelligence and machine learning to your itinerary. This year three incredible trailblazers, Dr. Suchi Saria from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Dr. Ramaraju Rudraraju from the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and Dr. Chun Yuan from the University of Washington, will compete for $10,000 prize sponsored to Amazon Web Service and Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine.

This year the World Economic Forum Collaborators will present sessions on big data and deep learning, blockchain in health care, and highlight the value in Healthcare Initiative for cardiovascular practice.

But not every innovation is new or digital. One of the most anticipated late-breaking science presentation is the results of the COLCOT study. The COLCOT study evaluated the impact of colchcine, an anti-inflammatory medication used for hundreds of years, on the recurrence of cardiovascular events in those who have recently experienced a heart attack. Results will be released Saturday morning at 10:45am.

What should you take away from Scientific Sessions this year? Yes, you will see, and hopefully experience, lots of cool and potentially life-changing innovations, develop lifelong networks, and walk a lot. And when you leave Philadelphia, you may be able to apply these innovation to your daily work. But, perhaps more importantly, I encourage you to take a step back and think about these innovations in the aggregate. Think about what prompted the “What If” questions that resulted in the presentations. Then think about your own “What if” questions.

As you attend Scientific Sessions this year, I hope you take away more than just (the important) knowledge about these innovations. I hope you take away the inspiration to ask your own “What If” questions. Let those questions change your practice or your daily work and inspire you to be a relentless force. And next year, or maybe in the next 10 years, bring your innovations back to Scientific Sessions and let them inspire others to dream bigger and see further.

Going the Distance: Setbacks and a Meaningful Career in Science

August 6, 2019August 6, 2019 Allison Webel, PhD

On July 4^th, me and 60,000 of my closest friends ran in the 50^th Peachtree Road Race in Atlanta, Georgia. This was my first 10K run and as a relatively new runner, my inclination for training for this race was to go hard and go fast – a manta not just for running but possibly for my entire generation. But as I would eventually learn, distance running is not about just getting it done. It is about being patient, listening to (and adjusting) my body, and having a long-term mindset focused on the process as much as the goal.

nih rejections Throughout my training, I was struck by how similar distance running is to a career in science and to grant writing in particular. When I finished my PhD 10 years ago, I was confident in my ability to write manuscripts and proposals, secure funding, and ultimately do and disseminate the science that would leave a lasting impact on the health of vulnerable populations. This confidence continued even when, during the last few years of my K award, I submitted grant after grant to the NIH only to have them be not discussed repeatedly. I understood that NIH success rates were low, with institutes reporting a range of success rates from ~10% to 35% in 2018. Mentors reminded me that failure was part of the process and that everyone has a string of not discussed grants in the early phase of their career. I just needed to keep listening to the reviewers, getting more preliminary data, refining my ideas, developing great teams, and above all writing, and eventually my ideas would hit. However, when my string of not discussed/not funded grants grew to 15 (Figure 1), each set of pink sheets more soul crushing than the last, I knew that statistically I was failing more than I should. And I questioned if I should even be in science or if these past few years were just wasted time.

These setbacks can be devastating – causing approximately 10-15% of early career scientists to leave the field. But what about those who stick it out? What happens to them and, more importantly, what is their long-term impact on science? These are the questions explored in a recent article by Yang Wang, Benjamin Joes, and Dashun Wang, “Early-Career Setbacks and Future Career Impact”. Through a series of pretty cool analyses they examined if early success in obtaining an R01 award from the National Institutes of Health led to more success and a higher impact (measured as highly-cited manuscripts) compared to those who almost, but just missed the funding threshold. Essentially, they wanted to figure out among early career health scientists which perspective is true: Do the “the rich get richer” or will “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?

Unsurprisingly, the results were somewhat mixed but encouraging for an early career scientist who has had many misses. While those with near misses had approximately a 10% chance of leaving the NIH funding system entirely over the next 10 years; of the scientists remaining, those who had an early career funding failure wrote higher impact manuscripts, compared to those who had early funding success. This is a striking finding which needs to be carefully considered (specifically that junior scientists do not need additional roadblocks in their path in order to become “stronger scientists”). Yet, the authors do suggest that for those scientists who persevere, “early failure should not be taken as a negative signal” rather viewed as a chance for refining and improving their program of research.

Wang and colleagues start their manuscript with a quote by Robert Lefkowitz, winner of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, “Science is 99 percent failure, and that’s an optimist view.” While he many have been referring to failed experiments, what Wang’s new analysis reveals is that even the process of obtaining the funding to support research is likely to be fraught with heartbreaking setbacks. But if you’re in science because you believe in its power to answer important questions which will help us to better understand and improve the human condition, perseverance is necessary.

I finished my first 10K in under 60 minutes. Not a medal-winning time but I preserved through the heat, sun, fatigue, and even a bit of pain to cross the finish line. Similarly, late last year I received the Notice of Award for my first R01 from the NIH- leading a research study that I believe in with a team that inspires me every day. So whether you are submitting your first or 15^th research grant, know that setbacks are common and despite the outcome on any one application, with a long-term mindset you can have a lasting impact on science.

How to Get in the Room Where it Happens: A Conversation with Don Lloyd-Jones About Becoming An Influencer

July 18, 2019July 18, 2019 Allison Webel, PhD

We’ve all had those moments – where someone we work with, someone in a position to make decisions – big decisions, not the marginal ones – makes THE wrong decision. A new department is created with no resources undermining its long-term viability, or an entire program is eliminated for short-term cost savings. No, I’m not talking about corporations or government. I’m talking about hospitals, clinics, and universities – the places early career clinician scientists hope to work after completing what seems like endless training. Poor leadership is endemic and early career scientists are likely to confront the question, “How to I position myself to influence the issues I’m passionate about?”

To understand this issue, I spoke with Don Lloyd-Jones of Northwestern University. For the past 15 years, Dr. Lloyd-Jones has served in leadership positions on numerous American Heart Association committees including the Statistics Committee, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention (EPI), and co-Chaired the Writing Group for 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk. Given his background of service, it was not surprising that he enthusiastically recommended that all early career clinician scientists become involved with a professional association whose mission resonates with them. However, it’s important to be strategic about developing your leadership experiences and he offered the following tips.

Tip #1: Be Bold, Work Hard, and if Necessary, Open Your Own Doors

Like other leaders, Don Lloyd-Jones’ mentors introduced him to professional organizations. They advocated he work on the Statistics Committee of the EPI Council, where he helped write the annual Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics Update. This was hard work, often completed during off-hours but in a timely fashion, and through it Lloyd-Jones established a reputation as a dependable team player. In 2008, as he chaired the stats committee, the AHA was thinking about the strategic impact it wanted to have on cardiovascular health over the next several decades. Described as a “moment of serendipity,” Lloyd-Jones was asked to chair what would become The American Heart Association’s Strategic Impact Goal Through 2020 and Beyond. For him, this was a “career-defining experience where we helped to pivot the AHA from preventing death to promoting cardiovascular health.”

While having a mentor connect you to committees and networks is an efficient way to get involved, it is not the only way to get in the room. For AHA and other professional organizations, introducing yourself to the committee’s Chair, Vice-Chair, Past-Chair and the nominating committee can get you on their radar. Then follow up with an email letting them know that you would love to work on their committee, asking how you can get more involved. When a door opens, even if it’s not exactly the one you wanted, “show up, do the work, share what drives you, create a reputation as a contributing team member, and in doing so you will have almost limitless opportunities to meaningfully effect change.”

Tip #2: Find Your Niche First

While every early career professional should plan to become involved with professional organizations, it is important to first establish a clinical niche or stabilize a successful lab before assuming a leadership position. Once that is accomplished, plan to quickly engage with professional societies because at that time, you have developed a substantive understanding of your field and will bring a voice to the table that will be respected, valued, and sought after. This inflection point often occurs mid-way to the end of one’s Career Development Award and should be planned for and strategically pursued.

Tip #3: Know What You Want

Reflecting on yourself – your goals, capabilities, and weaknesses – is a common theme in leadership books. A critical look at what you want from a leadership experience will help you select the right one and maximize its benefits. In the short-term, if you want highly-cited publications, working with the stats committee might be a great fit. Or if you have a long-term vision of assuming national leadership roles, you may want to try out different committees to see which one aligns with your preferred areas of strategic influence. However, all true leadership engagement, whether at a regional or national level, will lead to a meaningful and expanded professional network. As Dr. Lloyd-Jones stated, “Serving allows you to make connections in robust ways. These new connections can be called upon for letters of support for promotions and tenure or for grant applications. And the personal connections developed through engagement will matter far more than the name of the person who is writing because they bring a lot more color to the applicant.” And over time these professional colleagues can become friends. He shared, “The friendships that you make in AHA, perhaps due to its altruistic nature, are quite unique. AHA draws remarkable people who share a vision to promote health and many become lifelong friends. Why wouldn’t you want to be a part of that?”

Tip #4: Be Open to Change

While many people pursue leadership experiences because they want to change the outcome, oftentimes we are changed by the process of leading with others. Yes, we will have bigger networks, busier travel schedules, and fewer free hours but all of this also changes us — our empathy, perspective, time-management skills, and our ability to adapt to new and ever-changing contexts. For Lloyd-Jones, his two years working on the 2020 strategic impact goals, “Substantially changed the focus of my research, what I talk about, what my whole department is focused on, which is increasingly on children and helping them get a healthier start in life. It’s been a wonderful gift.“

In their review article, Warren and Carnell describe the non-technical skills needed for health care leadership including “creating and communicating a vision, setting clear direction, service redesign and healthcare improvement, effective negotiation, awareness of both self and others, working collaboratively and networking.” No one is born knowing how to create and clearly communicate an inspiring long-term vision for change and collaborating to turn that vision into reality. It takes time, practice, failure, courage, and continued investment. Should you choose to pursue your own leadership path, I hope the time, work, and energy you spend developing influence will be among the most fulfilling investments in your career.

Or as Lin-Manuel Miranda wrote:

“….When you got skin in the game, you stay in the game
But you don’t get a win unless you play in the game
Oh, you get love for it, you get hate for it
You get nothing if you
Wait for it.”

Paradigms and Progress in HIV and Cardiovascular Health

June 11, 2019June 11, 2019 Allison Webel, PhD

“Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places” – Thomas S. Kuhn

For a lot of rational (and some irrational) reasons, hearing the word HIV evokes fear, anger, and sadness. When I first heard about HIV, I was an elementary school student in late 1980’s and at that time, HIV was almost always a death sentence. But today that is not the case. Today, due to the hard work of scientists, patients, volunteers, advocates, and countless others, HIV is a chronic, manageable disease. An accomplishment epitomized by the oldest known person living with HIV recently turning 100 years old.

living with HIV graph

While this progress and longevity should be celebrated, the flip-side of age is that it is the primary driver of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In fact, this longevity has ushered in a new era where adults living with HIV are at exceptionally high risk of cardiovascular diseases including heart attacks, heart failure, and stroke. A recent meta-analysis by Anoop Shah, MD, from the University of Edinburgh, found that the global burden of HIV-associated cardiovascular disease has tripled in the past 20 years, especially in low and middle-income countries. Now, after more than two decades of accumulating evidence in this field, the American Heart Association released earlier this month a Scientific Statement on the characteristics, prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in people living with HIV.

Directed at all who support adults living with HIV, this statement is a general roadmap for raising awareness about the increasing burden of CVD in this population. However, it offers few new tools for providers to use, due primarily to the lack of high-quality “clinical trial data on how to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases in people living [and aging] with HIV investigating cardiovascular endpoints” said Matthew J. Feinstein, M.D., M.Sc., chair of the writing group for the statement and assistant professor of medicine at the Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University.

Still, what the existing (mostly observational) evidence allowed the writing group to do was to develop a pragmatic approach to assessing and preventing cardiovascular disease in treated HIV (Figure above). This approach includes the following:

Ensure all patients living with HIV are on effective HIV treatment
Determine risk of cardiovascular disease using tools such as ACC/AHA 10-year ASCVD risk estimator and a family history
Optimize lifestyle approach to prevention (e.g., smoking cessation, physical activity, healthy diet intake)
If at high risk and between the ages of 40-75 years, talk with the patient about the risks and benefits of lipid-lowering therapy while exercising caution for drug-drug interactions

Yet, while the new AHA Scientific Statement will be an important catalyst for the field, in many ways it creates more questions than answers. For example, are we shifting to a new paradigm in HIV care? Do we need new tools to help reduce CVD in this population or are the general recommendations for risk stratification and lifestyle optimization sufficient? What is the most effective way to get either existing or new clinical tools to the high-risk patients living with HIV?

Fortunately, some of these questions are starting to be answered. The REPRIEVE study is the first large scale (>8,000 people) clinical trial to test if a daily statin reduces cardiovascular disease in adults living with HIV. Results are expected in the next 3-4 years. Additionally, the PRECluDe grants at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute have stimulated new implementation science research focused on understanding how to best adapt effective CVD prevention studies to the real-world settings where people living with HIV receive their health care. These initiatives, coupled with ongoing research on the discovery of mechanisms of CVD and the testing of CVD prevention interventions in people living with HIV, will eventually allow for the development of guidelines on the prevention and management of CVD in HIV—the true instrument needed to help improve cardiovascular health for all adults living with HIV.