User login
Navigating chronic cough in primary care
Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”
“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.
“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough
Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.
Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.
Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
Effective management strategies
Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.
The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.
“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.
Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
Current treatments and future prospects
Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.
Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.
Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.
“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.
Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”
“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.
“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough
Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.
Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.
Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
Effective management strategies
Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.
The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.
“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.
Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
Current treatments and future prospects
Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.
Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.
Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.
“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.
Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic cough took center stage at the European Respiratory Society Congress session titled “Conditions We Are Just Dealing With the Tip of the Iceberg in Primary Care: Frequently Mismanaged Conditions in Primary Health Care.”
“When it comes to chronic cough, general practitioners often feel lost,” Miguel Román Rodríguez, family doctor and an associate professor of family medicine at the University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Mallorca, Spain, and one of the chairs of the session, said to this news organization.
“GPs are central in diagnosing conditions like chronic cough. We bring something that the specialists don’t bring: the knowledge of the context, of the family, the longitudinal history,” echoed the second chair of the session, Hilary Pinnock, family physician and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at the University of Edinburgh.
Understanding the multifaceted nature of chronic cough
Imran Satia, an assistant professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., guided attendees at the Milan, Italy, meeting through a comprehensive exploration of chronic cough. The first issue he addressed was the definition of the condition, emphasizing that it is defined by its duration, with chronic cough typically lasting for more than 8 weeks. Prof. Satia pointed out common associations of chronic cough, including asthma, nasal disease, and reflux disease.
Delving into epidemiology, he cited a meta-analysis indicating a global prevalence of approximately 10% in the adult population, with significant regional variability: from 18.1% in Australia to 2.3% in Africa. Notably, the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found an overall prevalence of 16% at baseline. “The most common risk factor was smoke, but even in nonsmokers the prevalence reached 10%,” Prof. Satia added, highlighting that it increased with age and changed depending on location. “The most common associated comorbidities were heart failure and hypertension, but also conditions related to chronic pain, mood, and anxiety,” he explained.
Mental health was identified as a crucial factor in chronic cough, with psychological distress and depressive symptoms emerging as risk factors for developing chronic cough over the next 3 years, contributing to a 20% increased risk.
Effective management strategies
Prof. Satia proposed the use of algorithms to aid in the management of patients with chronic cough in primary care. He introduced a Canadian algorithm that offers specific recommendations for both primary and secondary care.
The algorithm’s primary care assessment, step 1, includes a comprehensive evaluation of the cough history (duration, severity, triggers, nature, location); cardiorespiratory, gastrointestinal, and nasal symptoms; and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and smoking status. Essential diagnostic tests, such as chest radiography (to check for structural disease), complete blood cell count, and spirometry (with or without bronchodilator reversibility), were emphasized. Urgent referral criteria encompassed symptoms like hemoptysis, weight loss, fever, or abnormal chest radiography findings.
“When checking for cough history, GPs should always consider factors like the presence of dry or productive cough, mental health, presence of chronic pain, stroke, and swallowing,” said Prof. Satia, stressing the importance of documenting the impact of chronic cough on quality of life, work life, social life, and family life. “This is something that doctors sometimes do not ask about. They may think that these are not major problems, but acknowledging their importance can help the patient,” he added.
Step 2 of the algorithm focuses on treatment options tailored to specific diagnoses, such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Prof. Satia urged caution, emphasizing that treatment should only be initiated when evidence of these conditions is present. Additionally, he encouraged early consideration of cough hypersensitivity syndrome when patients exhibit coughing in response to low levels of mechanical stimulation.
Current treatments and future prospects
Prof. Satia presented an overview of existing treatments for chronic cough, outlining their respective advantages and disadvantages. For instance, speech therapy is a patient-led approach with no side effects but entails challenges related to access, costs, and patient motivation. On the other hand, low-dose morphine offers rapid relief but is associated with issues like nausea, stigma, and constipation.
Looking ahead, Prof. Satia shared the results of COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, pivotal phase 3 trials evaluating the oral, peripherally acting P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant. This drug, currently approved in Switzerland and Japan, demonstrated a significant reduction in cough frequency, compared with placebo, with rapid and sustained effects. “The estimated relative reduction for 45 mg was 18.45% in COUGH-1 (12 weeks) and 14.64% in COUGH-2 (24 weeks). Of note, cough reduction is very quick and sustained with gefapixant, but a 40% reduction is observed in the placebo arm,” commented Prof. Satia.
Experts unanimously stressed the importance for specialists and GPs of effective communication in managing chronic cough, involving both patients and their families.
“As GPs, we are crucial to manage the common problems, but we are also crucial to spot the needle in the haystack: this is extremely difficult and challenging, and we need support from our colleagues,” Dr. Pinnock concluded.
Prof. Satia reported funding from Merck MSD, AstraZeneca, and GSK; consulting fees from Merck MSD, Genentech, and Respiplus; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and Merck MSD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ERS 2023
Growing public perception that cannabis is safer than tobacco
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- While aggressive campaigns have led to a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of cigarette smoking and created safer smoke-free environments, regulation governing cannabis – which is associated with some health benefits but also many negative health outcomes – has been less restrictive.
- The study included a nationally representative sample of 5,035 mostly White U.S. adults, mean age 53.4 years, who completed three online surveys between 2017 and 2021 on the safety of tobacco and cannabis.
- In all three waves of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the safety of smoking one marijuana joint a day to smoking one cigarette a day, and of secondhand smoke from marijuana to that from tobacco.
- Respondents also expressed views on the safety of secondhand smoke exposure (of both marijuana and tobacco) on specific populations, including children, pregnant women, and adults (ratings were from “completely unsafe” to “completely safe”).
- Independent variables included age, sex, race, ethnicity, education level, annual income, employment status, marital status, and state of residence.
TAKEAWAY:
- There was a significant shift over time toward an increasingly favorable perception of cannabis; more respondents reported cannabis was “somewhat safer” or “much safer” than tobacco in 2021 than 2017 (44.3% vs. 36.7%; P < .001), and more believed secondhand smoke was somewhat or much safer for cannabis vs. tobacco in 2021 than in 2017 (40.2% vs. 35.1%; P < .001).
- More people endorsed the greater safety of secondhand smoke from cannabis vs. tobacco for children and pregnant women, and these perceptions remained similar over the study period.
- Younger and unmarried individuals were significantly more likely to move toward viewing smoking cannabis as safer than cigarettes, but legality of cannabis in respondents’ state of residence was not associated with change over time, suggesting the increasing perception of cannabis safety may be a national trend rather than a trend seen only in states with legalized cannabis.
IN PRACTICE:
“Understanding changing views on tobacco and cannabis risk is important given that increases in social acceptance and decreases in risk perception may be directly associated with public health and policies,” the investigators write.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Julia Chambers, MD, department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The generalizability of the study may be limited by nonresponse and loss to follow-up over time. The wording of survey questions may have introduced bias in respondents. Participants were asked about safety of smoking cannabis joints vs. tobacco cigarettes and not to compare safety of other forms of smoked and vaped cannabis, tobacco, and nicotine.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. Dr. Chambers has no relevant conflicts of interest; author Katherine J. Hoggatt, PhD, MPH, department of medicine, UCSF, reported receiving grants from the Veterans Health Administration during the conduct of the study and grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rubin Family Foundation, and Veterans Health Administration outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- While aggressive campaigns have led to a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of cigarette smoking and created safer smoke-free environments, regulation governing cannabis – which is associated with some health benefits but also many negative health outcomes – has been less restrictive.
- The study included a nationally representative sample of 5,035 mostly White U.S. adults, mean age 53.4 years, who completed three online surveys between 2017 and 2021 on the safety of tobacco and cannabis.
- In all three waves of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the safety of smoking one marijuana joint a day to smoking one cigarette a day, and of secondhand smoke from marijuana to that from tobacco.
- Respondents also expressed views on the safety of secondhand smoke exposure (of both marijuana and tobacco) on specific populations, including children, pregnant women, and adults (ratings were from “completely unsafe” to “completely safe”).
- Independent variables included age, sex, race, ethnicity, education level, annual income, employment status, marital status, and state of residence.
TAKEAWAY:
- There was a significant shift over time toward an increasingly favorable perception of cannabis; more respondents reported cannabis was “somewhat safer” or “much safer” than tobacco in 2021 than 2017 (44.3% vs. 36.7%; P < .001), and more believed secondhand smoke was somewhat or much safer for cannabis vs. tobacco in 2021 than in 2017 (40.2% vs. 35.1%; P < .001).
- More people endorsed the greater safety of secondhand smoke from cannabis vs. tobacco for children and pregnant women, and these perceptions remained similar over the study period.
- Younger and unmarried individuals were significantly more likely to move toward viewing smoking cannabis as safer than cigarettes, but legality of cannabis in respondents’ state of residence was not associated with change over time, suggesting the increasing perception of cannabis safety may be a national trend rather than a trend seen only in states with legalized cannabis.
IN PRACTICE:
“Understanding changing views on tobacco and cannabis risk is important given that increases in social acceptance and decreases in risk perception may be directly associated with public health and policies,” the investigators write.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Julia Chambers, MD, department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The generalizability of the study may be limited by nonresponse and loss to follow-up over time. The wording of survey questions may have introduced bias in respondents. Participants were asked about safety of smoking cannabis joints vs. tobacco cigarettes and not to compare safety of other forms of smoked and vaped cannabis, tobacco, and nicotine.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. Dr. Chambers has no relevant conflicts of interest; author Katherine J. Hoggatt, PhD, MPH, department of medicine, UCSF, reported receiving grants from the Veterans Health Administration during the conduct of the study and grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rubin Family Foundation, and Veterans Health Administration outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- While aggressive campaigns have led to a dramatic reduction in the prevalence of cigarette smoking and created safer smoke-free environments, regulation governing cannabis – which is associated with some health benefits but also many negative health outcomes – has been less restrictive.
- The study included a nationally representative sample of 5,035 mostly White U.S. adults, mean age 53.4 years, who completed three online surveys between 2017 and 2021 on the safety of tobacco and cannabis.
- In all three waves of the survey, respondents were asked to rate the safety of smoking one marijuana joint a day to smoking one cigarette a day, and of secondhand smoke from marijuana to that from tobacco.
- Respondents also expressed views on the safety of secondhand smoke exposure (of both marijuana and tobacco) on specific populations, including children, pregnant women, and adults (ratings were from “completely unsafe” to “completely safe”).
- Independent variables included age, sex, race, ethnicity, education level, annual income, employment status, marital status, and state of residence.
TAKEAWAY:
- There was a significant shift over time toward an increasingly favorable perception of cannabis; more respondents reported cannabis was “somewhat safer” or “much safer” than tobacco in 2021 than 2017 (44.3% vs. 36.7%; P < .001), and more believed secondhand smoke was somewhat or much safer for cannabis vs. tobacco in 2021 than in 2017 (40.2% vs. 35.1%; P < .001).
- More people endorsed the greater safety of secondhand smoke from cannabis vs. tobacco for children and pregnant women, and these perceptions remained similar over the study period.
- Younger and unmarried individuals were significantly more likely to move toward viewing smoking cannabis as safer than cigarettes, but legality of cannabis in respondents’ state of residence was not associated with change over time, suggesting the increasing perception of cannabis safety may be a national trend rather than a trend seen only in states with legalized cannabis.
IN PRACTICE:
“Understanding changing views on tobacco and cannabis risk is important given that increases in social acceptance and decreases in risk perception may be directly associated with public health and policies,” the investigators write.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Julia Chambers, MD, department of medicine, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The generalizability of the study may be limited by nonresponse and loss to follow-up over time. The wording of survey questions may have introduced bias in respondents. Participants were asked about safety of smoking cannabis joints vs. tobacco cigarettes and not to compare safety of other forms of smoked and vaped cannabis, tobacco, and nicotine.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from the California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. Dr. Chambers has no relevant conflicts of interest; author Katherine J. Hoggatt, PhD, MPH, department of medicine, UCSF, reported receiving grants from the Veterans Health Administration during the conduct of the study and grants from the National Institutes of Health, Rubin Family Foundation, and Veterans Health Administration outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adaptive treatment aids smoking cessation
Smokers who followed an adaptive treatment regimen with drug patches had greater smoking abstinence after 12 weeks than did those who followed a standard regimen, based on data from 188 individuals.
Adaptive pharmacotherapy is a common strategy across many medical conditions, but its use in smoking cessation treatments involving skin patches has not been examined, wrote James M. Davis, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 188 adults who sought smoking cessation treatment at a university health system between February 2018 and May 2020. The researchers planned to enroll 300 adults, but enrollment was truncated because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Participants chose between varenicline or nicotine patches, and then were randomized to an adaptive or standard treatment regimen. All participants started their medication 4 weeks before their target quit smoking day.
A total of 127 participants chose varenicline, with 64 randomized to adaptive treatment and 63 randomized to standard treatment; 61 participants chose nicotine patches, with 31 randomized to adaptive treatment and 30 randomized to standard treatment. Overall, participants smoked a mean of 15.4 cigarettes per day at baseline. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years; 54% were female, 52% were White, and 48% were Black. Baseline demographics were similar between the groups.
The primary outcome was 30-day continuous abstinence from smoking (biochemically verified) at 12 weeks after each participant’s target quit date.
After 2 weeks (2 weeks before the target quit smoking day), all participants were assessed for treatment response. Those in the adaptive group who were deemed responders, defined as a reduction in daily cigarettes of at least 50%, received placebo bupropion. Those in the adaptive group deemed nonresponders received 150 mg bupropion twice daily in addition to their patch regimen. The standard treatment group also received placebo bupropion.
At 12 weeks after the target quit day, 24% of the adaptive group demonstrated 30-day continuous smoking abstinence, compared with 9% of the standard group (odds ratio, 3.38; P = .004). Smoking abstinence was higher in the adaptive vs. placebo groups for those who used varenicline patches (28% vs. 8%; OR, 4.54) and for those who used nicotine patches (16% vs. 10%; OR, 1.73).
In addition, 7-day smoking abstinence measured at a 2-week postquit day visit was three times higher in the adaptive group compared with the standard treatment group (32% vs. 11%; OR, 3.30).
No incidents of death, life-threatening events, hospitalization, or persistent or significant disability or incapacity related to the study were reported; one death in the varenicline group was attributable to stage 4 cancer.
The findings were limited by several factors including the few or no participants of Alaska Native, American Indian, Hispanic, or Pacific Islander ethnicities, or those who were multiracial. The free medication and modest compensation for study visits further reduce generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the smaller-than-intended sample size and inability to assess individual components of adaptive treatment, they said.
However, the results support the value of adaptive treatment and suggest that adaptive treatment with precessation varenicline or nicotine patches followed by bupropion for nonresponders is more effective than standard treatment for smoking cessation.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the varenicline was provided by Pfizer. Dr. Davis had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Smokers who followed an adaptive treatment regimen with drug patches had greater smoking abstinence after 12 weeks than did those who followed a standard regimen, based on data from 188 individuals.
Adaptive pharmacotherapy is a common strategy across many medical conditions, but its use in smoking cessation treatments involving skin patches has not been examined, wrote James M. Davis, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 188 adults who sought smoking cessation treatment at a university health system between February 2018 and May 2020. The researchers planned to enroll 300 adults, but enrollment was truncated because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Participants chose between varenicline or nicotine patches, and then were randomized to an adaptive or standard treatment regimen. All participants started their medication 4 weeks before their target quit smoking day.
A total of 127 participants chose varenicline, with 64 randomized to adaptive treatment and 63 randomized to standard treatment; 61 participants chose nicotine patches, with 31 randomized to adaptive treatment and 30 randomized to standard treatment. Overall, participants smoked a mean of 15.4 cigarettes per day at baseline. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years; 54% were female, 52% were White, and 48% were Black. Baseline demographics were similar between the groups.
The primary outcome was 30-day continuous abstinence from smoking (biochemically verified) at 12 weeks after each participant’s target quit date.
After 2 weeks (2 weeks before the target quit smoking day), all participants were assessed for treatment response. Those in the adaptive group who were deemed responders, defined as a reduction in daily cigarettes of at least 50%, received placebo bupropion. Those in the adaptive group deemed nonresponders received 150 mg bupropion twice daily in addition to their patch regimen. The standard treatment group also received placebo bupropion.
At 12 weeks after the target quit day, 24% of the adaptive group demonstrated 30-day continuous smoking abstinence, compared with 9% of the standard group (odds ratio, 3.38; P = .004). Smoking abstinence was higher in the adaptive vs. placebo groups for those who used varenicline patches (28% vs. 8%; OR, 4.54) and for those who used nicotine patches (16% vs. 10%; OR, 1.73).
In addition, 7-day smoking abstinence measured at a 2-week postquit day visit was three times higher in the adaptive group compared with the standard treatment group (32% vs. 11%; OR, 3.30).
No incidents of death, life-threatening events, hospitalization, or persistent or significant disability or incapacity related to the study were reported; one death in the varenicline group was attributable to stage 4 cancer.
The findings were limited by several factors including the few or no participants of Alaska Native, American Indian, Hispanic, or Pacific Islander ethnicities, or those who were multiracial. The free medication and modest compensation for study visits further reduce generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the smaller-than-intended sample size and inability to assess individual components of adaptive treatment, they said.
However, the results support the value of adaptive treatment and suggest that adaptive treatment with precessation varenicline or nicotine patches followed by bupropion for nonresponders is more effective than standard treatment for smoking cessation.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the varenicline was provided by Pfizer. Dr. Davis had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Smokers who followed an adaptive treatment regimen with drug patches had greater smoking abstinence after 12 weeks than did those who followed a standard regimen, based on data from 188 individuals.
Adaptive pharmacotherapy is a common strategy across many medical conditions, but its use in smoking cessation treatments involving skin patches has not been examined, wrote James M. Davis, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., and colleagues.
In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 188 adults who sought smoking cessation treatment at a university health system between February 2018 and May 2020. The researchers planned to enroll 300 adults, but enrollment was truncated because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Participants chose between varenicline or nicotine patches, and then were randomized to an adaptive or standard treatment regimen. All participants started their medication 4 weeks before their target quit smoking day.
A total of 127 participants chose varenicline, with 64 randomized to adaptive treatment and 63 randomized to standard treatment; 61 participants chose nicotine patches, with 31 randomized to adaptive treatment and 30 randomized to standard treatment. Overall, participants smoked a mean of 15.4 cigarettes per day at baseline. The mean age of the participants was 49.1 years; 54% were female, 52% were White, and 48% were Black. Baseline demographics were similar between the groups.
The primary outcome was 30-day continuous abstinence from smoking (biochemically verified) at 12 weeks after each participant’s target quit date.
After 2 weeks (2 weeks before the target quit smoking day), all participants were assessed for treatment response. Those in the adaptive group who were deemed responders, defined as a reduction in daily cigarettes of at least 50%, received placebo bupropion. Those in the adaptive group deemed nonresponders received 150 mg bupropion twice daily in addition to their patch regimen. The standard treatment group also received placebo bupropion.
At 12 weeks after the target quit day, 24% of the adaptive group demonstrated 30-day continuous smoking abstinence, compared with 9% of the standard group (odds ratio, 3.38; P = .004). Smoking abstinence was higher in the adaptive vs. placebo groups for those who used varenicline patches (28% vs. 8%; OR, 4.54) and for those who used nicotine patches (16% vs. 10%; OR, 1.73).
In addition, 7-day smoking abstinence measured at a 2-week postquit day visit was three times higher in the adaptive group compared with the standard treatment group (32% vs. 11%; OR, 3.30).
No incidents of death, life-threatening events, hospitalization, or persistent or significant disability or incapacity related to the study were reported; one death in the varenicline group was attributable to stage 4 cancer.
The findings were limited by several factors including the few or no participants of Alaska Native, American Indian, Hispanic, or Pacific Islander ethnicities, or those who were multiracial. The free medication and modest compensation for study visits further reduce generalizability, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the smaller-than-intended sample size and inability to assess individual components of adaptive treatment, they said.
However, the results support the value of adaptive treatment and suggest that adaptive treatment with precessation varenicline or nicotine patches followed by bupropion for nonresponders is more effective than standard treatment for smoking cessation.
The study was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the varenicline was provided by Pfizer. Dr. Davis had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
When does a bicarb drip make sense?
A 70-year-old woman is admitted to the intensive care unit with a pH of 7.1, an acute kidney injury (AKI), and ketonuria. She is volume depleted and her history is consistent with starvation ketosis. This LOL truly is in NAD (that’s little old lady in no acute distress, for those who haven’t read The House of God). She is clinically stable and seemingly unperturbed by the flurry of activity surrounding her admission.
Your resident is concerned by the severity of the acidosis and suggests starting an intravenous bicarbonate drip. The fellow is adamantly against it. He’s been taught that intravenous bicarbonate increases the serum pH but paradoxically causes intracellular acidosis. As the attending you elect to observe fellow autonomy – no bicarb is given. Because any debate on rounds is a “teachable moment,” you decide to review the evidence and physiology behind infusing bicarbonate.
What do the data reveal?
An excellent review published in CHEST in 2000 covers the physiologic effects of bicarbonate, specifically related to lactic acidosis, which our patient didn’t have. Aside from that difference, the review validates the fellow’s opinion. In short, It is unlikely to provoke hemodynamic or respiratory compromise outside the setting of shock or hypercapnia. Intravenous bicarbonate can lead to intracellular acidosis, hypercapnia, hypocalcemia, and a reduction in oxygen delivery via the Bohr effect. The authors concluded that because the benefits are unproven and the negative effects are real, intravenous bicarbonate should not be used to correct a metabolic acidosis.
The CHEST review hardly settles the issue, though. A survey published a few years later found a majority of intensivists and nephrologists used intravenous bicarbonate to treat metabolic acidosis while the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock published in 2017 recommended against bicarbonate for acidosis. It wasn’t until 2018 that we reached the holy grail: a randomized controlled trial.
The BICAR-ICU study randomly assigned patients with a pH of 7.20 or less, PCO2 of 45 mm Hg or less, and sodium bicarbonate concentration of 20 mmol/L or less to receive no bicarbonate versus a sodium bicarbonate drip to maintain a pH greater than 7.30. There’s additional nuance to the trial design and even more detail in the results. To summarize, there was signal for an improvement in renal outcomes across all patients, and those with AKI saw a mortality benefit. Post–BICAR-ICU iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines have incorporated these findings by recommending intravenous bicarbonate for patients with sepsis who have AKI and a pH of 7.20 or less.
That’s not to say BICAR-ICU has settled the issue. Although it’s far and away the best we have, there were fewer than 400 total patients in their intention-to-treat analysis. It was open label, with lots of crossover. The primary outcome was negative for the entire population, with only a subgroup (albeit a prespecified one) showing benefit. Finally, the results weren’t stratified by etiology for the metabolic acidosis. There was also evidence of alkalosis and hypocalcemia in the treatment group.
Last but not least in terms of importance, in most cases when bicarbonate is being considered, wouldn’t some form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) be preferred? This point was raised by nephrologists and intensivists when we covered BICAR-ICU in a journal club at my former program. It’s also mentioned in an accompanying editorial. RRT timing is controversial, and a detailed discussion is outside the scope of this piece and beyond the limits of my current knowledge base. But I do know that the A in the A-E-I-O-U acute indications for dialysis pneumonic stands for acidosis.
Our patient had AKI, a pH of 7.20 or less, and a pCO2 well under 45 mm Hg. Does BICAR-ICU support the resident’s inclination to start a drip? Sort of. The majority of patients enrolled in BICAR-ICU were in shock or were recovering from cardiac arrest, so it’s not clear the results can be generalized to our LOL with starvation ketosis. Extrapolating from studies of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) seems more appropriate, and here the data are poor but equivocal. Reviews are generally negative but don’t rule out the use of intravenous bicarbonate in certain patients with DKA.
Key takeaways
Our patient survived a 24-hour ICU stay with neither cardiopulmonary decompensation nor a need for RRT. Not sure how she did out of the ICU; presumably she was discharged soon after transfer. As is always the case with anecdotal medicine, the absence of a control prevents assessment of the counterfactual. Is it possible she may have done “better” with intravenous bicarbonate? Seems unlikely to me, though I doubt there would have been demonstrable adverse effects. Perhaps next time the fellow can observe resident autonomy?
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 70-year-old woman is admitted to the intensive care unit with a pH of 7.1, an acute kidney injury (AKI), and ketonuria. She is volume depleted and her history is consistent with starvation ketosis. This LOL truly is in NAD (that’s little old lady in no acute distress, for those who haven’t read The House of God). She is clinically stable and seemingly unperturbed by the flurry of activity surrounding her admission.
Your resident is concerned by the severity of the acidosis and suggests starting an intravenous bicarbonate drip. The fellow is adamantly against it. He’s been taught that intravenous bicarbonate increases the serum pH but paradoxically causes intracellular acidosis. As the attending you elect to observe fellow autonomy – no bicarb is given. Because any debate on rounds is a “teachable moment,” you decide to review the evidence and physiology behind infusing bicarbonate.
What do the data reveal?
An excellent review published in CHEST in 2000 covers the physiologic effects of bicarbonate, specifically related to lactic acidosis, which our patient didn’t have. Aside from that difference, the review validates the fellow’s opinion. In short, It is unlikely to provoke hemodynamic or respiratory compromise outside the setting of shock or hypercapnia. Intravenous bicarbonate can lead to intracellular acidosis, hypercapnia, hypocalcemia, and a reduction in oxygen delivery via the Bohr effect. The authors concluded that because the benefits are unproven and the negative effects are real, intravenous bicarbonate should not be used to correct a metabolic acidosis.
The CHEST review hardly settles the issue, though. A survey published a few years later found a majority of intensivists and nephrologists used intravenous bicarbonate to treat metabolic acidosis while the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock published in 2017 recommended against bicarbonate for acidosis. It wasn’t until 2018 that we reached the holy grail: a randomized controlled trial.
The BICAR-ICU study randomly assigned patients with a pH of 7.20 or less, PCO2 of 45 mm Hg or less, and sodium bicarbonate concentration of 20 mmol/L or less to receive no bicarbonate versus a sodium bicarbonate drip to maintain a pH greater than 7.30. There’s additional nuance to the trial design and even more detail in the results. To summarize, there was signal for an improvement in renal outcomes across all patients, and those with AKI saw a mortality benefit. Post–BICAR-ICU iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines have incorporated these findings by recommending intravenous bicarbonate for patients with sepsis who have AKI and a pH of 7.20 or less.
That’s not to say BICAR-ICU has settled the issue. Although it’s far and away the best we have, there were fewer than 400 total patients in their intention-to-treat analysis. It was open label, with lots of crossover. The primary outcome was negative for the entire population, with only a subgroup (albeit a prespecified one) showing benefit. Finally, the results weren’t stratified by etiology for the metabolic acidosis. There was also evidence of alkalosis and hypocalcemia in the treatment group.
Last but not least in terms of importance, in most cases when bicarbonate is being considered, wouldn’t some form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) be preferred? This point was raised by nephrologists and intensivists when we covered BICAR-ICU in a journal club at my former program. It’s also mentioned in an accompanying editorial. RRT timing is controversial, and a detailed discussion is outside the scope of this piece and beyond the limits of my current knowledge base. But I do know that the A in the A-E-I-O-U acute indications for dialysis pneumonic stands for acidosis.
Our patient had AKI, a pH of 7.20 or less, and a pCO2 well under 45 mm Hg. Does BICAR-ICU support the resident’s inclination to start a drip? Sort of. The majority of patients enrolled in BICAR-ICU were in shock or were recovering from cardiac arrest, so it’s not clear the results can be generalized to our LOL with starvation ketosis. Extrapolating from studies of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) seems more appropriate, and here the data are poor but equivocal. Reviews are generally negative but don’t rule out the use of intravenous bicarbonate in certain patients with DKA.
Key takeaways
Our patient survived a 24-hour ICU stay with neither cardiopulmonary decompensation nor a need for RRT. Not sure how she did out of the ICU; presumably she was discharged soon after transfer. As is always the case with anecdotal medicine, the absence of a control prevents assessment of the counterfactual. Is it possible she may have done “better” with intravenous bicarbonate? Seems unlikely to me, though I doubt there would have been demonstrable adverse effects. Perhaps next time the fellow can observe resident autonomy?
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A 70-year-old woman is admitted to the intensive care unit with a pH of 7.1, an acute kidney injury (AKI), and ketonuria. She is volume depleted and her history is consistent with starvation ketosis. This LOL truly is in NAD (that’s little old lady in no acute distress, for those who haven’t read The House of God). She is clinically stable and seemingly unperturbed by the flurry of activity surrounding her admission.
Your resident is concerned by the severity of the acidosis and suggests starting an intravenous bicarbonate drip. The fellow is adamantly against it. He’s been taught that intravenous bicarbonate increases the serum pH but paradoxically causes intracellular acidosis. As the attending you elect to observe fellow autonomy – no bicarb is given. Because any debate on rounds is a “teachable moment,” you decide to review the evidence and physiology behind infusing bicarbonate.
What do the data reveal?
An excellent review published in CHEST in 2000 covers the physiologic effects of bicarbonate, specifically related to lactic acidosis, which our patient didn’t have. Aside from that difference, the review validates the fellow’s opinion. In short, It is unlikely to provoke hemodynamic or respiratory compromise outside the setting of shock or hypercapnia. Intravenous bicarbonate can lead to intracellular acidosis, hypercapnia, hypocalcemia, and a reduction in oxygen delivery via the Bohr effect. The authors concluded that because the benefits are unproven and the negative effects are real, intravenous bicarbonate should not be used to correct a metabolic acidosis.
The CHEST review hardly settles the issue, though. A survey published a few years later found a majority of intensivists and nephrologists used intravenous bicarbonate to treat metabolic acidosis while the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock published in 2017 recommended against bicarbonate for acidosis. It wasn’t until 2018 that we reached the holy grail: a randomized controlled trial.
The BICAR-ICU study randomly assigned patients with a pH of 7.20 or less, PCO2 of 45 mm Hg or less, and sodium bicarbonate concentration of 20 mmol/L or less to receive no bicarbonate versus a sodium bicarbonate drip to maintain a pH greater than 7.30. There’s additional nuance to the trial design and even more detail in the results. To summarize, there was signal for an improvement in renal outcomes across all patients, and those with AKI saw a mortality benefit. Post–BICAR-ICU iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines have incorporated these findings by recommending intravenous bicarbonate for patients with sepsis who have AKI and a pH of 7.20 or less.
That’s not to say BICAR-ICU has settled the issue. Although it’s far and away the best we have, there were fewer than 400 total patients in their intention-to-treat analysis. It was open label, with lots of crossover. The primary outcome was negative for the entire population, with only a subgroup (albeit a prespecified one) showing benefit. Finally, the results weren’t stratified by etiology for the metabolic acidosis. There was also evidence of alkalosis and hypocalcemia in the treatment group.
Last but not least in terms of importance, in most cases when bicarbonate is being considered, wouldn’t some form of renal replacement therapy (RRT) be preferred? This point was raised by nephrologists and intensivists when we covered BICAR-ICU in a journal club at my former program. It’s also mentioned in an accompanying editorial. RRT timing is controversial, and a detailed discussion is outside the scope of this piece and beyond the limits of my current knowledge base. But I do know that the A in the A-E-I-O-U acute indications for dialysis pneumonic stands for acidosis.
Our patient had AKI, a pH of 7.20 or less, and a pCO2 well under 45 mm Hg. Does BICAR-ICU support the resident’s inclination to start a drip? Sort of. The majority of patients enrolled in BICAR-ICU were in shock or were recovering from cardiac arrest, so it’s not clear the results can be generalized to our LOL with starvation ketosis. Extrapolating from studies of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) seems more appropriate, and here the data are poor but equivocal. Reviews are generally negative but don’t rule out the use of intravenous bicarbonate in certain patients with DKA.
Key takeaways
Our patient survived a 24-hour ICU stay with neither cardiopulmonary decompensation nor a need for RRT. Not sure how she did out of the ICU; presumably she was discharged soon after transfer. As is always the case with anecdotal medicine, the absence of a control prevents assessment of the counterfactual. Is it possible she may have done “better” with intravenous bicarbonate? Seems unlikely to me, though I doubt there would have been demonstrable adverse effects. Perhaps next time the fellow can observe resident autonomy?
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center. He reported conflicts of interest with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Young vapers and smokers beware: Eye problems abound
Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.
Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week.
“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study.
Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes.
This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.
E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known.
Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week.
Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups.
More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).
“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”
E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users.
The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said.
Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.
Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said.
“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.”
This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.
Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week.
“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study.
Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes.
This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.
E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known.
Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week.
Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups.
More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).
“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”
E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users.
The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said.
Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.
Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said.
“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.”
This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.
Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week.
“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study.
Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes.
This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.
E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known.
Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week.
Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups.
More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).
“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”
E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users.
The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said.
Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.
Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said.
“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.”
This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
Mepolizumab improves asthma after 1 year despite comorbidities
Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.
Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.
In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.
To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.
The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).
Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.
“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.
The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).
In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.
Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV1 improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.
“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.
“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.
The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.
Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.
Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.
In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.
To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.
The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).
Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.
“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.
The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).
In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.
Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV1 improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.
“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.
“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.
The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.
Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.
Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.
In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.
To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.
The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).
Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.
“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.
The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).
In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.
Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV1 improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.
“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.
“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.
The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY: IN PRACTICE
Screening finds high rates of CVD in diabetes, COPD patients
AMSTERDAM – , compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.
Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.
“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire
The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.
The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.
The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.
About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.
The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate
The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.
The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.
An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM – , compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.
Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.
“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire
The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.
The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.
The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.
About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.
The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate
The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.
The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.
An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AMSTERDAM – , compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.
Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.
“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire
The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.
The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.
The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.
About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.
The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.
The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate
The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.
The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.
An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.
RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ESC CONGRESS 2023
ACR releases guideline for managing ILD in patients with rheumatic disease
The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.
The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).
“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”
The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.
The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.
Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:
- Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
- PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
- It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
- It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
- It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.
Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.
Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”
Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:
- The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
- Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
- Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
- It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
- If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
- If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
- The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.
These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.
“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.
She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”
The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.
By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.
Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.
Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.
The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).
“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”
The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.
The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.
Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:
- Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
- PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
- It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
- It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
- It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.
Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.
Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”
Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:
- The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
- Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
- Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
- It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
- If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
- If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
- The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.
These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.
“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.
She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”
The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.
By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.
Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.
Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.
The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).
“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”
The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.
The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.
Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:
- Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
- PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
- It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
- It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
- It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.
Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.
Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”
Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:
- The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
- Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
- Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
- It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
- If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
- If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
- The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.
These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.
“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.
She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”
The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.
By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.
Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.
Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Interstitial lung disease plus pulmonary hypertension equals poor outcomes in systemic sclerosis
, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.
Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.
Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.
In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.
The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.
By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).
“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).
In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).
The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.
, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.
Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.
Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.
In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.
The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.
By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).
“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).
In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).
The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.
, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.
Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.
Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.
In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.
The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.
By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).
“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).
In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).
The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.
FROM THE JOURNAL CHEST
Expert calls for sparing oxygen use for dyspnea in the emergency department
PARIS – , as per the current guidelines. Florian Negrello, MD, an emergency medicine specialist at University Hospital of Martinique in Fort-de-France, reiterated this message at the 2023 conference held by France’s emergency medicine society (Urgences 2023). The recommendation is intended to prevent hyperoxia; increasing evidence indicates the harmful effects of such a state on the body.
“This is a real problem. Oxygen therapy is given all too readily despite studies now showing that excess oxygen is harmful, especially in patients with head trauma, ischemic stroke, or cardiac arrest,” stated the session’s moderator, Patrick Plaisance, MD, PhD, a doctor at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris.
No proven hypoxia
Described as difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, dyspnea is common in the emergency department, occurring in 5%-9% of patients. Close to 20% of intensive care unit admissions involve patients with dyspnea. “Since this is a very subjective symptom, it’s possible it’s being underdiagnosed,” said Dr. Negrello.
Lower respiratory tract infection, acute heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exacerbation of asthma are the four main diagnoses linked to dyspnea, but this symptom is also seen in several medical conditions (gastrointestinal, metabolic, neurologic, etc.), he noted.
Often seen as a harmless treatment option, oxygen therapy is commonly administered to patients with breathing difficulties even when no hypoxemia is documented. This is particularly the case for patients brought into hospital via ambulance who are treated with oxygen without even having had their blood oxygen levels, SpO2, and partial pressure of oxygen checked.
In the United States, one of the few studies published on the topic showed that one-third of patients transported via ambulance are put on oxygen, with SpO2 being measured in just 5% of these cases. Finally, just 17% of patients receiving oxygen were experiencing hypoxia, defined as SpO2 < 94%.
Oxidative stress
Recently, several research studies have revealed the potential dangers of unjustified use of oxygen, which can lead to hyperoxia and increased mortality in hospitalized patients.
A meta-analysis reported a linear relationship between severe hyperoxia, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay in intensive care. Another study revealed a greater mortality rate in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) experiencing an episode of hyperoxia, regardless of the severity of ARDS.
Oxygen toxicity in intensive care is said to be linked to oxidative stress caused by increased growth of reactive oxygen species but also to the systemic inflammation caused by hyperoxia, explained Dr. Negrello. Excess oxygen may also cause lung lesions with necrosis, the severity of which is proportional to the fraction of inspired oxygen and the length of exposure.
According to the most up-to-date international recommendations published in 2018 on the use of oxygen therapy in treating acute conditions, oxygen should not be used when SpO2 ≥ 93%. When treatment has been started, it must be stopped when SpO2 reaches 96%. SpO2 cannot be maintained above 96%, according to experts.
These threshold values can be found in the COVID-19 treatment guidelines produced by the French-Language Society of Respiratory Medicine, with oxygen therapy being recommended when SpO2 < 92%, added Dr. Negrello. The aim is to maintain normal oxygen levels, with SpO2 between 92% and 96%.
Use sparingly
For patients with COPD, the target levels are lower, due to the risk of hypercapnia (higher than normal carbon dioxide levels in the blood). Oxygen saturation levels should then be kept between 88% and 92%, “by using the minimum amount of oxygen necessary,” per the guidelines.
“Oxygen should be used sparingly,” concluded Dr. Negrello. “To treat our patients without harming them, we must be able to use it at the right time, meaning when a patient really has low blood oxygen, by focusing on normal saturation levels as the end goal.”
SpO2 measurement is the first step to be taken to determine oxygen requirements, followed by, if necessary, blood gas analysis once the patient has been admitted, he explained.
Questioned at the end of his session on how long oxygen therapy can be given for, Dr. Negrello reiterated that the risk for death is correlated with the length of time spent in a state of hyperoxia but that it is difficult to establish a maximum timeframe to be adhered to strictly.
Given that excess oxygen is harmful to patients in intensive care, “it would be better, when in doubt, to focus on physiological levels” and simply stop treatment when target saturation levels are reached.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – , as per the current guidelines. Florian Negrello, MD, an emergency medicine specialist at University Hospital of Martinique in Fort-de-France, reiterated this message at the 2023 conference held by France’s emergency medicine society (Urgences 2023). The recommendation is intended to prevent hyperoxia; increasing evidence indicates the harmful effects of such a state on the body.
“This is a real problem. Oxygen therapy is given all too readily despite studies now showing that excess oxygen is harmful, especially in patients with head trauma, ischemic stroke, or cardiac arrest,” stated the session’s moderator, Patrick Plaisance, MD, PhD, a doctor at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris.
No proven hypoxia
Described as difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, dyspnea is common in the emergency department, occurring in 5%-9% of patients. Close to 20% of intensive care unit admissions involve patients with dyspnea. “Since this is a very subjective symptom, it’s possible it’s being underdiagnosed,” said Dr. Negrello.
Lower respiratory tract infection, acute heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exacerbation of asthma are the four main diagnoses linked to dyspnea, but this symptom is also seen in several medical conditions (gastrointestinal, metabolic, neurologic, etc.), he noted.
Often seen as a harmless treatment option, oxygen therapy is commonly administered to patients with breathing difficulties even when no hypoxemia is documented. This is particularly the case for patients brought into hospital via ambulance who are treated with oxygen without even having had their blood oxygen levels, SpO2, and partial pressure of oxygen checked.
In the United States, one of the few studies published on the topic showed that one-third of patients transported via ambulance are put on oxygen, with SpO2 being measured in just 5% of these cases. Finally, just 17% of patients receiving oxygen were experiencing hypoxia, defined as SpO2 < 94%.
Oxidative stress
Recently, several research studies have revealed the potential dangers of unjustified use of oxygen, which can lead to hyperoxia and increased mortality in hospitalized patients.
A meta-analysis reported a linear relationship between severe hyperoxia, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay in intensive care. Another study revealed a greater mortality rate in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) experiencing an episode of hyperoxia, regardless of the severity of ARDS.
Oxygen toxicity in intensive care is said to be linked to oxidative stress caused by increased growth of reactive oxygen species but also to the systemic inflammation caused by hyperoxia, explained Dr. Negrello. Excess oxygen may also cause lung lesions with necrosis, the severity of which is proportional to the fraction of inspired oxygen and the length of exposure.
According to the most up-to-date international recommendations published in 2018 on the use of oxygen therapy in treating acute conditions, oxygen should not be used when SpO2 ≥ 93%. When treatment has been started, it must be stopped when SpO2 reaches 96%. SpO2 cannot be maintained above 96%, according to experts.
These threshold values can be found in the COVID-19 treatment guidelines produced by the French-Language Society of Respiratory Medicine, with oxygen therapy being recommended when SpO2 < 92%, added Dr. Negrello. The aim is to maintain normal oxygen levels, with SpO2 between 92% and 96%.
Use sparingly
For patients with COPD, the target levels are lower, due to the risk of hypercapnia (higher than normal carbon dioxide levels in the blood). Oxygen saturation levels should then be kept between 88% and 92%, “by using the minimum amount of oxygen necessary,” per the guidelines.
“Oxygen should be used sparingly,” concluded Dr. Negrello. “To treat our patients without harming them, we must be able to use it at the right time, meaning when a patient really has low blood oxygen, by focusing on normal saturation levels as the end goal.”
SpO2 measurement is the first step to be taken to determine oxygen requirements, followed by, if necessary, blood gas analysis once the patient has been admitted, he explained.
Questioned at the end of his session on how long oxygen therapy can be given for, Dr. Negrello reiterated that the risk for death is correlated with the length of time spent in a state of hyperoxia but that it is difficult to establish a maximum timeframe to be adhered to strictly.
Given that excess oxygen is harmful to patients in intensive care, “it would be better, when in doubt, to focus on physiological levels” and simply stop treatment when target saturation levels are reached.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – , as per the current guidelines. Florian Negrello, MD, an emergency medicine specialist at University Hospital of Martinique in Fort-de-France, reiterated this message at the 2023 conference held by France’s emergency medicine society (Urgences 2023). The recommendation is intended to prevent hyperoxia; increasing evidence indicates the harmful effects of such a state on the body.
“This is a real problem. Oxygen therapy is given all too readily despite studies now showing that excess oxygen is harmful, especially in patients with head trauma, ischemic stroke, or cardiac arrest,” stated the session’s moderator, Patrick Plaisance, MD, PhD, a doctor at Lariboisière Hospital in Paris.
No proven hypoxia
Described as difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, dyspnea is common in the emergency department, occurring in 5%-9% of patients. Close to 20% of intensive care unit admissions involve patients with dyspnea. “Since this is a very subjective symptom, it’s possible it’s being underdiagnosed,” said Dr. Negrello.
Lower respiratory tract infection, acute heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exacerbation of asthma are the four main diagnoses linked to dyspnea, but this symptom is also seen in several medical conditions (gastrointestinal, metabolic, neurologic, etc.), he noted.
Often seen as a harmless treatment option, oxygen therapy is commonly administered to patients with breathing difficulties even when no hypoxemia is documented. This is particularly the case for patients brought into hospital via ambulance who are treated with oxygen without even having had their blood oxygen levels, SpO2, and partial pressure of oxygen checked.
In the United States, one of the few studies published on the topic showed that one-third of patients transported via ambulance are put on oxygen, with SpO2 being measured in just 5% of these cases. Finally, just 17% of patients receiving oxygen were experiencing hypoxia, defined as SpO2 < 94%.
Oxidative stress
Recently, several research studies have revealed the potential dangers of unjustified use of oxygen, which can lead to hyperoxia and increased mortality in hospitalized patients.
A meta-analysis reported a linear relationship between severe hyperoxia, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay in intensive care. Another study revealed a greater mortality rate in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) experiencing an episode of hyperoxia, regardless of the severity of ARDS.
Oxygen toxicity in intensive care is said to be linked to oxidative stress caused by increased growth of reactive oxygen species but also to the systemic inflammation caused by hyperoxia, explained Dr. Negrello. Excess oxygen may also cause lung lesions with necrosis, the severity of which is proportional to the fraction of inspired oxygen and the length of exposure.
According to the most up-to-date international recommendations published in 2018 on the use of oxygen therapy in treating acute conditions, oxygen should not be used when SpO2 ≥ 93%. When treatment has been started, it must be stopped when SpO2 reaches 96%. SpO2 cannot be maintained above 96%, according to experts.
These threshold values can be found in the COVID-19 treatment guidelines produced by the French-Language Society of Respiratory Medicine, with oxygen therapy being recommended when SpO2 < 92%, added Dr. Negrello. The aim is to maintain normal oxygen levels, with SpO2 between 92% and 96%.
Use sparingly
For patients with COPD, the target levels are lower, due to the risk of hypercapnia (higher than normal carbon dioxide levels in the blood). Oxygen saturation levels should then be kept between 88% and 92%, “by using the minimum amount of oxygen necessary,” per the guidelines.
“Oxygen should be used sparingly,” concluded Dr. Negrello. “To treat our patients without harming them, we must be able to use it at the right time, meaning when a patient really has low blood oxygen, by focusing on normal saturation levels as the end goal.”
SpO2 measurement is the first step to be taken to determine oxygen requirements, followed by, if necessary, blood gas analysis once the patient has been admitted, he explained.
Questioned at the end of his session on how long oxygen therapy can be given for, Dr. Negrello reiterated that the risk for death is correlated with the length of time spent in a state of hyperoxia but that it is difficult to establish a maximum timeframe to be adhered to strictly.
Given that excess oxygen is harmful to patients in intensive care, “it would be better, when in doubt, to focus on physiological levels” and simply stop treatment when target saturation levels are reached.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.