Pulmonology

Earlier this year, I stumbled across a podcast in a content update email from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The moderator was interviewing the first author of a study comparing hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone (hydro/fludro) to hydrocortisone alone for treatment of septic shock. In the introduction, the author commented on the discordance in practice among his peers at his hospital. It seemed that there was no consensus on whether fludrocortisone was necessary.

I thought this issue had been settled with publication of the COIITSS trial in 2010. This study randomly assigned 509 patients with septic shock to hydro/fludro versus hydrocortisone alone. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality with hydro/fludro and everyone I knew stopped adding fludrocortisone for septic shock. It wasn’t included in guidelines (and still isn›t). I figured the only docs still using it were also prescribing ivermectin and vitamin C – another treatment touted to work in an apocryphal podcast.

It wasn’t just COIITSS that killed fludrocortisone for me. Back in 2002, I was a loyal adherent. That year, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published by “the lord of corticosteroids for critical illness” doctor, Djillali Annane, found benefit to hydro/fludro in septic shock . Everyone in that study had a cosyntropin stim test and only certain subgroups had better outcomes. As a medical resident paying obeisance to all things evidence-based medicine, I rigidly adopted their protocol for all septic patients. I also kept their insulin between 80 and 110 mg/dL, prescribed drotrecogin alfa, and made sure they were floating in crystalloid. But those are topics for another time.

Subsequent trials and meta-analyses cast doubt on the need for the stim test, and a consensus around hydrocortisone at moderate doses for patients with septic shock emerged. Because one part of the Annane protocol was already deemed unnecessary (the cosyntropin stim test), it was easy to dismiss fludrocortisone after COIITTS was published. Yes, I read Annane’s 2018 APROCCHSS trial, and I’m aware that it found that hydro/fludro reduced 90-day mortality. Like others, I rationalized this finding by framing it as a function of baseline mortality. The two Annane RCTs that found that hydro/fludro reduced mortality in enrolled patients who were considerably more likely to die than those enrolled in RCTs of hydrocortisone alone were negative. It was the target population mortality rate and not the addition of fludrocortisone that made the difference, right?
 

Rethinking hydro/fludro

The author interviewed for the recent JAMA podcast forced me to rethink my blithe dismissal of fludrocortisone. He contended that the COIITTS trial was underpowered and the two Annane RCTs that used fludrocortisone supply the evidence that shows corticosteroids reduce septic shock mortality. As discussed earlier, he found clinical equipoise among his colleagues. Last, he invoked pleiotropic mineralocorticoid effects, such as activation of innate immunity and clearance of alveolar fluid, to support the need to reexamine hydro/fludro.

In his study, he used Big Data to compare hospital records from 2016 to 2020. He analyzed a total of 88,275 patients with septic shock. Most were prescribed hydrocortisone alone (85,995 [97.4%] vs. only 2.6% hydro/fludro). After a number of statistical adjustments and sensitivity analyses, the authors concluded that the addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock provides a 3.7% absolute risk reduction in mortality (or discharge to hospice) when compared with hydrocortisone alone. That’s a number needed to treat of 28 to prevent one death (or discharge to hospice).
 

Key takeaways

The study isn’t perfect. In their methods section they use terms like “ensemble machine learner (super learner)” and “immortal time bias.” The first is a fancy way of saying they did a form of propensity scoring, which in turn is a fancy way of saying they tried to control for confounding. The second is a way to adjust for time delays between drug administration. Both are attempts to compensate for the observational design, as is their argument for biologic plausibility. Here they’re on particularly thin ice when trying to prove causal inference. Biologic plausibility is never hard to find; after all, what compound doesn’t have pleiotropic effects? Furthermore, the analysis lacks any data to support their biologic plausibility hypothesis that fludrocortisone’s effect on mortality is mediated via activation of innate immunity and/or clearance of alveolar fluid.

The editorial accompanying this Big Data study endorsed adding fludrocortisone. We have very little that reduces ICU mortality so the low number needed to treat is enticing, especially in light of the low risk from adverse events, so I’m going to start using it. Do I think I’ll save one life for every 28 patients with septic shock to whom I give hydro/fludro instead of hydrocortisone alone? I sure don’t. No way an oral mineralocorticoid at that dose has that type of impact on top of hydrocortisone alone. I still believe that the Annane studies are positive because of the mortality rate in the population enrolled and not because fludrocortisone was added. It all comes full circle, though – 20 years after I abandoned hydro/fludro, I’m going back to it.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/critical care and sleep medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this year, I stumbled across a podcast in a content update email from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The moderator was interviewing the first author of a study comparing hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone (hydro/fludro) to hydrocortisone alone for treatment of septic shock. In the introduction, the author commented on the discordance in practice among his peers at his hospital. It seemed that there was no consensus on whether fludrocortisone was necessary.

I thought this issue had been settled with publication of the COIITSS trial in 2010. This study randomly assigned 509 patients with septic shock to hydro/fludro versus hydrocortisone alone. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality with hydro/fludro and everyone I knew stopped adding fludrocortisone for septic shock. It wasn’t included in guidelines (and still isn›t). I figured the only docs still using it were also prescribing ivermectin and vitamin C – another treatment touted to work in an apocryphal podcast.

It wasn’t just COIITSS that killed fludrocortisone for me. Back in 2002, I was a loyal adherent. That year, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published by “the lord of corticosteroids for critical illness” doctor, Djillali Annane, found benefit to hydro/fludro in septic shock . Everyone in that study had a cosyntropin stim test and only certain subgroups had better outcomes. As a medical resident paying obeisance to all things evidence-based medicine, I rigidly adopted their protocol for all septic patients. I also kept their insulin between 80 and 110 mg/dL, prescribed drotrecogin alfa, and made sure they were floating in crystalloid. But those are topics for another time.

Subsequent trials and meta-analyses cast doubt on the need for the stim test, and a consensus around hydrocortisone at moderate doses for patients with septic shock emerged. Because one part of the Annane protocol was already deemed unnecessary (the cosyntropin stim test), it was easy to dismiss fludrocortisone after COIITTS was published. Yes, I read Annane’s 2018 APROCCHSS trial, and I’m aware that it found that hydro/fludro reduced 90-day mortality. Like others, I rationalized this finding by framing it as a function of baseline mortality. The two Annane RCTs that found that hydro/fludro reduced mortality in enrolled patients who were considerably more likely to die than those enrolled in RCTs of hydrocortisone alone were negative. It was the target population mortality rate and not the addition of fludrocortisone that made the difference, right?
 

Rethinking hydro/fludro

The author interviewed for the recent JAMA podcast forced me to rethink my blithe dismissal of fludrocortisone. He contended that the COIITTS trial was underpowered and the two Annane RCTs that used fludrocortisone supply the evidence that shows corticosteroids reduce septic shock mortality. As discussed earlier, he found clinical equipoise among his colleagues. Last, he invoked pleiotropic mineralocorticoid effects, such as activation of innate immunity and clearance of alveolar fluid, to support the need to reexamine hydro/fludro.

In his study, he used Big Data to compare hospital records from 2016 to 2020. He analyzed a total of 88,275 patients with septic shock. Most were prescribed hydrocortisone alone (85,995 [97.4%] vs. only 2.6% hydro/fludro). After a number of statistical adjustments and sensitivity analyses, the authors concluded that the addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock provides a 3.7% absolute risk reduction in mortality (or discharge to hospice) when compared with hydrocortisone alone. That’s a number needed to treat of 28 to prevent one death (or discharge to hospice).
 

Key takeaways

The study isn’t perfect. In their methods section they use terms like “ensemble machine learner (super learner)” and “immortal time bias.” The first is a fancy way of saying they did a form of propensity scoring, which in turn is a fancy way of saying they tried to control for confounding. The second is a way to adjust for time delays between drug administration. Both are attempts to compensate for the observational design, as is their argument for biologic plausibility. Here they’re on particularly thin ice when trying to prove causal inference. Biologic plausibility is never hard to find; after all, what compound doesn’t have pleiotropic effects? Furthermore, the analysis lacks any data to support their biologic plausibility hypothesis that fludrocortisone’s effect on mortality is mediated via activation of innate immunity and/or clearance of alveolar fluid.

The editorial accompanying this Big Data study endorsed adding fludrocortisone. We have very little that reduces ICU mortality so the low number needed to treat is enticing, especially in light of the low risk from adverse events, so I’m going to start using it. Do I think I’ll save one life for every 28 patients with septic shock to whom I give hydro/fludro instead of hydrocortisone alone? I sure don’t. No way an oral mineralocorticoid at that dose has that type of impact on top of hydrocortisone alone. I still believe that the Annane studies are positive because of the mortality rate in the population enrolled and not because fludrocortisone was added. It all comes full circle, though – 20 years after I abandoned hydro/fludro, I’m going back to it.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/critical care and sleep medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier this year, I stumbled across a podcast in a content update email from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The moderator was interviewing the first author of a study comparing hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone (hydro/fludro) to hydrocortisone alone for treatment of septic shock. In the introduction, the author commented on the discordance in practice among his peers at his hospital. It seemed that there was no consensus on whether fludrocortisone was necessary.

I thought this issue had been settled with publication of the COIITSS trial in 2010. This study randomly assigned 509 patients with septic shock to hydro/fludro versus hydrocortisone alone. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mortality with hydro/fludro and everyone I knew stopped adding fludrocortisone for septic shock. It wasn’t included in guidelines (and still isn›t). I figured the only docs still using it were also prescribing ivermectin and vitamin C – another treatment touted to work in an apocryphal podcast.

It wasn’t just COIITSS that killed fludrocortisone for me. Back in 2002, I was a loyal adherent. That year, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) published by “the lord of corticosteroids for critical illness” doctor, Djillali Annane, found benefit to hydro/fludro in septic shock . Everyone in that study had a cosyntropin stim test and only certain subgroups had better outcomes. As a medical resident paying obeisance to all things evidence-based medicine, I rigidly adopted their protocol for all septic patients. I also kept their insulin between 80 and 110 mg/dL, prescribed drotrecogin alfa, and made sure they were floating in crystalloid. But those are topics for another time.

Subsequent trials and meta-analyses cast doubt on the need for the stim test, and a consensus around hydrocortisone at moderate doses for patients with septic shock emerged. Because one part of the Annane protocol was already deemed unnecessary (the cosyntropin stim test), it was easy to dismiss fludrocortisone after COIITTS was published. Yes, I read Annane’s 2018 APROCCHSS trial, and I’m aware that it found that hydro/fludro reduced 90-day mortality. Like others, I rationalized this finding by framing it as a function of baseline mortality. The two Annane RCTs that found that hydro/fludro reduced mortality in enrolled patients who were considerably more likely to die than those enrolled in RCTs of hydrocortisone alone were negative. It was the target population mortality rate and not the addition of fludrocortisone that made the difference, right?
 

Rethinking hydro/fludro

The author interviewed for the recent JAMA podcast forced me to rethink my blithe dismissal of fludrocortisone. He contended that the COIITTS trial was underpowered and the two Annane RCTs that used fludrocortisone supply the evidence that shows corticosteroids reduce septic shock mortality. As discussed earlier, he found clinical equipoise among his colleagues. Last, he invoked pleiotropic mineralocorticoid effects, such as activation of innate immunity and clearance of alveolar fluid, to support the need to reexamine hydro/fludro.

In his study, he used Big Data to compare hospital records from 2016 to 2020. He analyzed a total of 88,275 patients with septic shock. Most were prescribed hydrocortisone alone (85,995 [97.4%] vs. only 2.6% hydro/fludro). After a number of statistical adjustments and sensitivity analyses, the authors concluded that the addition of fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock provides a 3.7% absolute risk reduction in mortality (or discharge to hospice) when compared with hydrocortisone alone. That’s a number needed to treat of 28 to prevent one death (or discharge to hospice).
 

Key takeaways

The study isn’t perfect. In their methods section they use terms like “ensemble machine learner (super learner)” and “immortal time bias.” The first is a fancy way of saying they did a form of propensity scoring, which in turn is a fancy way of saying they tried to control for confounding. The second is a way to adjust for time delays between drug administration. Both are attempts to compensate for the observational design, as is their argument for biologic plausibility. Here they’re on particularly thin ice when trying to prove causal inference. Biologic plausibility is never hard to find; after all, what compound doesn’t have pleiotropic effects? Furthermore, the analysis lacks any data to support their biologic plausibility hypothesis that fludrocortisone’s effect on mortality is mediated via activation of innate immunity and/or clearance of alveolar fluid.

The editorial accompanying this Big Data study endorsed adding fludrocortisone. We have very little that reduces ICU mortality so the low number needed to treat is enticing, especially in light of the low risk from adverse events, so I’m going to start using it. Do I think I’ll save one life for every 28 patients with septic shock to whom I give hydro/fludro instead of hydrocortisone alone? I sure don’t. No way an oral mineralocorticoid at that dose has that type of impact on top of hydrocortisone alone. I still believe that the Annane studies are positive because of the mortality rate in the population enrolled and not because fludrocortisone was added. It all comes full circle, though – 20 years after I abandoned hydro/fludro, I’m going back to it.

Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/critical care and sleep medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tobacco users who quit smoking reduce their risk of developing type 2 diabetes by as much as 30% to 40%, and quitting even after one has developed type 2 diabetes is important in preventing a worsening of the disease’s many serious comorbidities, according to a new policy brief jointly issued by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.

With type 2 diabetes representing one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide and the ninth cause of death globally, the potential to reduce the risk and worsening of the disease by quitting smoking adds to the urgency of smoking cessation as a public health interest.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• The policy brief summarizes the evidence on the health impacts of type 2 diabetes, tobacco smoking, and the pathophysiology of tobacco use and its role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
• The brief also describes the latest data on newer products that target smokers or potential smokers, including smokeless tobacco, new nicotine and tobacco products, and their relationship with type 2 diabetes. For instance, evidence suggests that even with smokeless tobacco, heavy use or high consumption increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, as the products often contain nicotine, known to contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes and related health conditions.
• Evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions among those with type 2 diabetes is also summarized, including discussion of a systematic review of six studies suggesting that interventions focusing on education and the involvement of health care professionals and pharmacists can be beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Smoking exacerbates the known serious complications of diabetic neuropathy and foot ulcers with type 2 diabetes, while further impeding wound healing.
• Smoking also causes damage to retinal blood vessels already at risk with type 2 diabetes, increasing the risk of diabetic retinopathy and vision loss.
• Quitting tobacco use can help prevent those and other major health complications already linked to diabetes, including kidney failure and cardiovascular events.
• Studies show that key misconceptions among smokers with type 2 diabetes that can prevent cessation include concerns about post-cessation weight gain, the influence of peers who smoke, and the psychological aspect of addiction.
• Clinicians are urged to provide advice on how to stop smoking to all tobacco users during the course of a routine consultation or interaction, which can be accomplished in only a few minutes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health professionals play a vital role in motivating and guiding individuals with type 2 diabetes in their journey to quit tobacco,” Ruediger Krech, MD, director of the Department of Health Promotion at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, said in a press statement on the policy brief.

“Simultaneously, governments must take the crucial step of ensuring all indoor public places, workplaces, and public transport are completely smoke-free. These interventions are essential safeguards against the onset and progression of this and many other chronic diseases,” he emphasized.
 

SOURCE:

The policy brief was jointly developed by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation, and the University of Newcastle.

The detailed policy brief can be downloaded on the IDF website.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Research remains limited on some issues, including the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions and smoking cessation methods for people with type 2 diabetes.

Likewise, specific guidelines for smoking cessation in the type 2 diabetes population are lacking.  However, the general approaches of building patient motivation, behavioral interventions, and pharmacological treatments are advised.

“These interventions should be at least as intensive as those for the general population, while considering the unique characteristics of the disease and the individual,” the authors asserted.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tobacco users who quit smoking reduce their risk of developing type 2 diabetes by as much as 30% to 40%, and quitting even after one has developed type 2 diabetes is important in preventing a worsening of the disease’s many serious comorbidities, according to a new policy brief jointly issued by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.

With type 2 diabetes representing one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide and the ninth cause of death globally, the potential to reduce the risk and worsening of the disease by quitting smoking adds to the urgency of smoking cessation as a public health interest.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• The policy brief summarizes the evidence on the health impacts of type 2 diabetes, tobacco smoking, and the pathophysiology of tobacco use and its role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
• The brief also describes the latest data on newer products that target smokers or potential smokers, including smokeless tobacco, new nicotine and tobacco products, and their relationship with type 2 diabetes. For instance, evidence suggests that even with smokeless tobacco, heavy use or high consumption increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, as the products often contain nicotine, known to contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes and related health conditions.
• Evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions among those with type 2 diabetes is also summarized, including discussion of a systematic review of six studies suggesting that interventions focusing on education and the involvement of health care professionals and pharmacists can be beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Smoking exacerbates the known serious complications of diabetic neuropathy and foot ulcers with type 2 diabetes, while further impeding wound healing.
• Smoking also causes damage to retinal blood vessels already at risk with type 2 diabetes, increasing the risk of diabetic retinopathy and vision loss.
• Quitting tobacco use can help prevent those and other major health complications already linked to diabetes, including kidney failure and cardiovascular events.
• Studies show that key misconceptions among smokers with type 2 diabetes that can prevent cessation include concerns about post-cessation weight gain, the influence of peers who smoke, and the psychological aspect of addiction.
• Clinicians are urged to provide advice on how to stop smoking to all tobacco users during the course of a routine consultation or interaction, which can be accomplished in only a few minutes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health professionals play a vital role in motivating and guiding individuals with type 2 diabetes in their journey to quit tobacco,” Ruediger Krech, MD, director of the Department of Health Promotion at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, said in a press statement on the policy brief.

“Simultaneously, governments must take the crucial step of ensuring all indoor public places, workplaces, and public transport are completely smoke-free. These interventions are essential safeguards against the onset and progression of this and many other chronic diseases,” he emphasized.
 

SOURCE:

The policy brief was jointly developed by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation, and the University of Newcastle.

The detailed policy brief can be downloaded on the IDF website.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Research remains limited on some issues, including the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions and smoking cessation methods for people with type 2 diabetes.

Likewise, specific guidelines for smoking cessation in the type 2 diabetes population are lacking.  However, the general approaches of building patient motivation, behavioral interventions, and pharmacological treatments are advised.

“These interventions should be at least as intensive as those for the general population, while considering the unique characteristics of the disease and the individual,” the authors asserted.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Tobacco users who quit smoking reduce their risk of developing type 2 diabetes by as much as 30% to 40%, and quitting even after one has developed type 2 diabetes is important in preventing a worsening of the disease’s many serious comorbidities, according to a new policy brief jointly issued by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), and the University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.

With type 2 diabetes representing one of the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide and the ninth cause of death globally, the potential to reduce the risk and worsening of the disease by quitting smoking adds to the urgency of smoking cessation as a public health interest.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• The policy brief summarizes the evidence on the health impacts of type 2 diabetes, tobacco smoking, and the pathophysiology of tobacco use and its role in the development of type 2 diabetes.
• The brief also describes the latest data on newer products that target smokers or potential smokers, including smokeless tobacco, new nicotine and tobacco products, and their relationship with type 2 diabetes. For instance, evidence suggests that even with smokeless tobacco, heavy use or high consumption increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, as the products often contain nicotine, known to contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes and related health conditions.
• Evidence on the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions among those with type 2 diabetes is also summarized, including discussion of a systematic review of six studies suggesting that interventions focusing on education and the involvement of health care professionals and pharmacists can be beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Smoking exacerbates the known serious complications of diabetic neuropathy and foot ulcers with type 2 diabetes, while further impeding wound healing.
• Smoking also causes damage to retinal blood vessels already at risk with type 2 diabetes, increasing the risk of diabetic retinopathy and vision loss.
• Quitting tobacco use can help prevent those and other major health complications already linked to diabetes, including kidney failure and cardiovascular events.
• Studies show that key misconceptions among smokers with type 2 diabetes that can prevent cessation include concerns about post-cessation weight gain, the influence of peers who smoke, and the psychological aspect of addiction.
• Clinicians are urged to provide advice on how to stop smoking to all tobacco users during the course of a routine consultation or interaction, which can be accomplished in only a few minutes.

IN PRACTICE:

“Health professionals play a vital role in motivating and guiding individuals with type 2 diabetes in their journey to quit tobacco,” Ruediger Krech, MD, director of the Department of Health Promotion at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, said in a press statement on the policy brief.

“Simultaneously, governments must take the crucial step of ensuring all indoor public places, workplaces, and public transport are completely smoke-free. These interventions are essential safeguards against the onset and progression of this and many other chronic diseases,” he emphasized.
 

SOURCE:

The policy brief was jointly developed by the World Health Organization, the International Diabetes Federation, and the University of Newcastle.

The detailed policy brief can be downloaded on the IDF website.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Research remains limited on some issues, including the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions and smoking cessation methods for people with type 2 diabetes.

Likewise, specific guidelines for smoking cessation in the type 2 diabetes population are lacking.  However, the general approaches of building patient motivation, behavioral interventions, and pharmacological treatments are advised.

“These interventions should be at least as intensive as those for the general population, while considering the unique characteristics of the disease and the individual,” the authors asserted.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Worsening heart failure is accompanied by a build-up of fluid in the lungs. An AI smartphone app that picks up changes in a heart failure patient’s voice quality caused by this fluid accumulation and then alerts the physician about them – nearly 3 weeks before that ongoing decompensation would necessitate hospitalization and/or lead the physician to urgently introduce intravenous diuretics – is getting experts to sit up and take notice.

“In this incredibly prevalent waxing and waning condition, finding ways to identify worsening heart failure to prevent hospitalization and progressive disease is incredibly important,” observed American Heart Association (AHA)-appointed discussant David Ouyang, MD, assistant professor, Smidt Heart Institute, Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles. “Heart failure remains among the most common causes of hospitalization for older adults in the United States.

“The other standout feature is that we all use our cell phones on a daily basis,” Dr. Ouyang said at a late-breaking trial press briefing at the AHA 2023 annual meeting where results of the HearO Community Study were presented. “The ability to capture data from routine speech (patients speak five sentences into their phones every morning) is remarkable ... The HearO^® technology was able to detect a substantial proportion of worsening heart failure events, with an average per individual of only three false positives over the course of a year. And, adherence to the study protocol was 81%. That’s higher than in many other kinds of routine patient monitoring studies,” he added.
 

Accumulating fluid changes speech

Increased hydration may affect speech parameters such as pitch, volume, and dynamics through swelling of soft tissues in the vocal tract (e.g., pharynx, velum, tongue, and vocal folds). In the Israeli study, investigators enrolled 416 adults (75% were male, average age was 68 years) whose New York Heart Association (NYHA) 2-3 heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction was stable but placed them at-risk for heart failure events. The study goal was to analyze their speech data using the HearO^® system to refine and test its ability to detect impending heart failure deterioration. Patients recorded five sentences in their native language (Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, or English) into the smartphone app daily. In a training phase of the study, distinct speech measures from 263 participants were used to develop the AI algorithm. Then, the algorithm was used in the remaining 153 participants to validate the tool’s effectiveness. In its ultimate form, once a deviation from the patient’s predefined baseline is detected, the app will generate a notice and send it to the health care practitioners.

Lead study author William T. Abraham, MD, FAHA, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology; and a College of Medicine Distinguished Professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at The Ohio State University in Columbus, reported that between Mar. 27, 2018, and Nov. 30, 2021, subjects in the training phase made recordings on 83% of days. They were followed for up to 44 months. The test group made recordings on 81% of days between Feb. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2023, and were followed for up to 31 months. Heart failure events were defined as hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic treatment for worsening heart failure.

In the training phase, the app accurately predicted 44 of 58 heart failure events (76%) and 81% of first events (n = 35) on average 24 days before hospitalization or need for intravenous fluids. In the validation phase, the app was 71% accurate in detecting 10 of 14 heart failure events and 77% of first events (n = 10) on average 26 days in advance of events. In both periods, the app generated about 3 unnecessary alerts per patient year.

Dr. Abraham concluded, “This technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, keeping patients well and out of the hospital, through the implementation of proactive, outpatient care in response to voice changes.”

The HearO^® technology is being evaluated in an ongoing pivotal trial in the United State4s, Dr. Abraham said. The study is limited, he added, by the small number of patients and heart failure events, particularly in the test group.

“We continue to struggle with the burden of heart failure morbidity,” observed AHA press briefing moderator (and past AHA president) Clyde Yancy, MD, Magerstadt Professor at Northwestern University, Chicago. “So any tool that we can utilize and further refine that helps us address the need for hospitalization becomes very important. The idea that speech evaluation might give us sufficient early warning to forestall any admissions – and consider the cost savings attributable to that – is a very credible goal that we should continue to follow.” He pointed out that the technology enables assessments in the home environment for older patients who are less mobile.

In response to a press briefing question about the potential for physicians to be trained to hear early subtle voice changes on their own, Dr. Abraham stated, “I guess that is unknown, but the important difference is the system’s ability to take data in every day from patients and then process it automatically with AI.”

Joining in, Dr. Yancy said, “You know, this is interesting because even if you saw a patient once a month, which is an incredible frequency for any practice, there’s still 353 days that you haven’t seen the patient.” He noted that the AHA had just announced a multi-million dollar program to more deeply understand telemanagement. “So I think this is here to stay,” Dr. Yancy said.

Dr. Ouyang posed a further question. “Like with most AI recognition tools, we can now identify individuals at risk. How do we get from that step of identifying those at risk to improving their outcomes? This has been a critical question about heart failure, remote management, and remote monitoring, and I think it is a critical question for many of our AI tools.”

Dr. Abraham disclosed that he has received personal fees from Cordio Medical. Dr. Ouyang said that he had no disclosures relevant to this presentation.

Worsening heart failure is accompanied by a build-up of fluid in the lungs. An AI smartphone app that picks up changes in a heart failure patient’s voice quality caused by this fluid accumulation and then alerts the physician about them – nearly 3 weeks before that ongoing decompensation would necessitate hospitalization and/or lead the physician to urgently introduce intravenous diuretics – is getting experts to sit up and take notice.

“In this incredibly prevalent waxing and waning condition, finding ways to identify worsening heart failure to prevent hospitalization and progressive disease is incredibly important,” observed American Heart Association (AHA)-appointed discussant David Ouyang, MD, assistant professor, Smidt Heart Institute, Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles. “Heart failure remains among the most common causes of hospitalization for older adults in the United States.

“The other standout feature is that we all use our cell phones on a daily basis,” Dr. Ouyang said at a late-breaking trial press briefing at the AHA 2023 annual meeting where results of the HearO Community Study were presented. “The ability to capture data from routine speech (patients speak five sentences into their phones every morning) is remarkable ... The HearO^® technology was able to detect a substantial proportion of worsening heart failure events, with an average per individual of only three false positives over the course of a year. And, adherence to the study protocol was 81%. That’s higher than in many other kinds of routine patient monitoring studies,” he added.
 

Accumulating fluid changes speech

Increased hydration may affect speech parameters such as pitch, volume, and dynamics through swelling of soft tissues in the vocal tract (e.g., pharynx, velum, tongue, and vocal folds). In the Israeli study, investigators enrolled 416 adults (75% were male, average age was 68 years) whose New York Heart Association (NYHA) 2-3 heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction was stable but placed them at-risk for heart failure events. The study goal was to analyze their speech data using the HearO^® system to refine and test its ability to detect impending heart failure deterioration. Patients recorded five sentences in their native language (Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, or English) into the smartphone app daily. In a training phase of the study, distinct speech measures from 263 participants were used to develop the AI algorithm. Then, the algorithm was used in the remaining 153 participants to validate the tool’s effectiveness. In its ultimate form, once a deviation from the patient’s predefined baseline is detected, the app will generate a notice and send it to the health care practitioners.

Lead study author William T. Abraham, MD, FAHA, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology; and a College of Medicine Distinguished Professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at The Ohio State University in Columbus, reported that between Mar. 27, 2018, and Nov. 30, 2021, subjects in the training phase made recordings on 83% of days. They were followed for up to 44 months. The test group made recordings on 81% of days between Feb. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2023, and were followed for up to 31 months. Heart failure events were defined as hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic treatment for worsening heart failure.

In the training phase, the app accurately predicted 44 of 58 heart failure events (76%) and 81% of first events (n = 35) on average 24 days before hospitalization or need for intravenous fluids. In the validation phase, the app was 71% accurate in detecting 10 of 14 heart failure events and 77% of first events (n = 10) on average 26 days in advance of events. In both periods, the app generated about 3 unnecessary alerts per patient year.

Dr. Abraham concluded, “This technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, keeping patients well and out of the hospital, through the implementation of proactive, outpatient care in response to voice changes.”

The HearO^® technology is being evaluated in an ongoing pivotal trial in the United State4s, Dr. Abraham said. The study is limited, he added, by the small number of patients and heart failure events, particularly in the test group.

“We continue to struggle with the burden of heart failure morbidity,” observed AHA press briefing moderator (and past AHA president) Clyde Yancy, MD, Magerstadt Professor at Northwestern University, Chicago. “So any tool that we can utilize and further refine that helps us address the need for hospitalization becomes very important. The idea that speech evaluation might give us sufficient early warning to forestall any admissions – and consider the cost savings attributable to that – is a very credible goal that we should continue to follow.” He pointed out that the technology enables assessments in the home environment for older patients who are less mobile.

In response to a press briefing question about the potential for physicians to be trained to hear early subtle voice changes on their own, Dr. Abraham stated, “I guess that is unknown, but the important difference is the system’s ability to take data in every day from patients and then process it automatically with AI.”

Joining in, Dr. Yancy said, “You know, this is interesting because even if you saw a patient once a month, which is an incredible frequency for any practice, there’s still 353 days that you haven’t seen the patient.” He noted that the AHA had just announced a multi-million dollar program to more deeply understand telemanagement. “So I think this is here to stay,” Dr. Yancy said.

Dr. Ouyang posed a further question. “Like with most AI recognition tools, we can now identify individuals at risk. How do we get from that step of identifying those at risk to improving their outcomes? This has been a critical question about heart failure, remote management, and remote monitoring, and I think it is a critical question for many of our AI tools.”

Dr. Abraham disclosed that he has received personal fees from Cordio Medical. Dr. Ouyang said that he had no disclosures relevant to this presentation.

Worsening heart failure is accompanied by a build-up of fluid in the lungs. An AI smartphone app that picks up changes in a heart failure patient’s voice quality caused by this fluid accumulation and then alerts the physician about them – nearly 3 weeks before that ongoing decompensation would necessitate hospitalization and/or lead the physician to urgently introduce intravenous diuretics – is getting experts to sit up and take notice.

“In this incredibly prevalent waxing and waning condition, finding ways to identify worsening heart failure to prevent hospitalization and progressive disease is incredibly important,” observed American Heart Association (AHA)-appointed discussant David Ouyang, MD, assistant professor, Smidt Heart Institute, Division of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Cedars Sinai, Los Angeles. “Heart failure remains among the most common causes of hospitalization for older adults in the United States.

“The other standout feature is that we all use our cell phones on a daily basis,” Dr. Ouyang said at a late-breaking trial press briefing at the AHA 2023 annual meeting where results of the HearO Community Study were presented. “The ability to capture data from routine speech (patients speak five sentences into their phones every morning) is remarkable ... The HearO^® technology was able to detect a substantial proportion of worsening heart failure events, with an average per individual of only three false positives over the course of a year. And, adherence to the study protocol was 81%. That’s higher than in many other kinds of routine patient monitoring studies,” he added.
 

Accumulating fluid changes speech

Increased hydration may affect speech parameters such as pitch, volume, and dynamics through swelling of soft tissues in the vocal tract (e.g., pharynx, velum, tongue, and vocal folds). In the Israeli study, investigators enrolled 416 adults (75% were male, average age was 68 years) whose New York Heart Association (NYHA) 2-3 heart failure with either reduced or preserved ejection fraction was stable but placed them at-risk for heart failure events. The study goal was to analyze their speech data using the HearO^® system to refine and test its ability to detect impending heart failure deterioration. Patients recorded five sentences in their native language (Hebrew, Russian, Arabic, or English) into the smartphone app daily. In a training phase of the study, distinct speech measures from 263 participants were used to develop the AI algorithm. Then, the algorithm was used in the remaining 153 participants to validate the tool’s effectiveness. In its ultimate form, once a deviation from the patient’s predefined baseline is detected, the app will generate a notice and send it to the health care practitioners.

Lead study author William T. Abraham, MD, FAHA, professor of medicine, physiology, and cell biology; and a College of Medicine Distinguished Professor in the division of cardiovascular medicine at The Ohio State University in Columbus, reported that between Mar. 27, 2018, and Nov. 30, 2021, subjects in the training phase made recordings on 83% of days. They were followed for up to 44 months. The test group made recordings on 81% of days between Feb. 1, 2020, and Apr. 30, 2023, and were followed for up to 31 months. Heart failure events were defined as hospitalization or outpatient intravenous diuretic treatment for worsening heart failure.

In the training phase, the app accurately predicted 44 of 58 heart failure events (76%) and 81% of first events (n = 35) on average 24 days before hospitalization or need for intravenous fluids. In the validation phase, the app was 71% accurate in detecting 10 of 14 heart failure events and 77% of first events (n = 10) on average 26 days in advance of events. In both periods, the app generated about 3 unnecessary alerts per patient year.

Dr. Abraham concluded, “This technology has the potential to improve patient outcomes, keeping patients well and out of the hospital, through the implementation of proactive, outpatient care in response to voice changes.”

The HearO^® technology is being evaluated in an ongoing pivotal trial in the United State4s, Dr. Abraham said. The study is limited, he added, by the small number of patients and heart failure events, particularly in the test group.

“We continue to struggle with the burden of heart failure morbidity,” observed AHA press briefing moderator (and past AHA president) Clyde Yancy, MD, Magerstadt Professor at Northwestern University, Chicago. “So any tool that we can utilize and further refine that helps us address the need for hospitalization becomes very important. The idea that speech evaluation might give us sufficient early warning to forestall any admissions – and consider the cost savings attributable to that – is a very credible goal that we should continue to follow.” He pointed out that the technology enables assessments in the home environment for older patients who are less mobile.

In response to a press briefing question about the potential for physicians to be trained to hear early subtle voice changes on their own, Dr. Abraham stated, “I guess that is unknown, but the important difference is the system’s ability to take data in every day from patients and then process it automatically with AI.”

Joining in, Dr. Yancy said, “You know, this is interesting because even if you saw a patient once a month, which is an incredible frequency for any practice, there’s still 353 days that you haven’t seen the patient.” He noted that the AHA had just announced a multi-million dollar program to more deeply understand telemanagement. “So I think this is here to stay,” Dr. Yancy said.

Dr. Ouyang posed a further question. “Like with most AI recognition tools, we can now identify individuals at risk. How do we get from that step of identifying those at risk to improving their outcomes? This has been a critical question about heart failure, remote management, and remote monitoring, and I think it is a critical question for many of our AI tools.”

Dr. Abraham disclosed that he has received personal fees from Cordio Medical. Dr. Ouyang said that he had no disclosures relevant to this presentation.

A 40-year-old women is evaluated for liver abnormalities. She had elevated transaminases and alkaline phosphatase. A liver ultrasound showed multiple lesions. She underwent liver biopsy, which showed granulomas. What test results, if abnormal, would be most suggestive of sarcoidosis?

A. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

B. C-reactive protein

C. Lymphocyte count

D. Antinuclear antibodies

The correct answer here is lymphocyte count. Sarcoidosis is in just about every differential diagnosis, as it can involve every organ system. I will share with you a few pearls I have learned over 30 years of taking care of patients with sarcoidosis. Lymphocyte counts drop with active sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis should always be part of the differential when you see lymphopenia. El Jammal et al. studied 90 patients referred for possible granulomatous hepatitis.¹ Seventy-three patients had a final diagnosis of granulomatous hepatitis, and 38 of those patients had sarcoidosis. Lymphopenia had a high specificity (85.7%) for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, with a specificity of 100% in the patients under 50 years old.

Morell and colleagues looked at whether low lymphocyte counts and low lymphocyte percentage were markers of active sarcoidosis.² Forty patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis were prospectively evaluated every 6 months. A low lymphocyte count and a low lymphocyte percentage (< 20%) were detected more frequently in patients with active sarcoidosis than in the patients with asymptomatic sarcoidosis (P < .02 and P < .0001).

Jones et al. looked at lymphopenia as a marker of sarcoidosis in patients presenting with uveitis.³ The study was a retrospective case-control study (112 patients with sarcoidosis-associated uveitis and 398 controls with other forms of uveitis). The mean lymphocyte count for patients with sarcoidosis was 1.43 vs. 2.04 for other causes of uveitis (P ≤ .0001).

Patients with sarcoidosis are at risk of hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and kidney stones. These are common in patients with sarcoidosis, with up to 50% of such patients having hypercalciuria. This is because in sarcoidosis patients 25(OH) vitamin D is converted in granulomas by activated macrophages to 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D, which is the active form of vitamin D.

Several studies have looked at the diagnostic utility of 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels in patients with suspected sarcoidosis. Rohmer and colleagues looked at whether 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels could help with the diagnosis of sarcoidosis as the cause of uveitis.⁴ They found that the level of 25(OH) vitamin D in sarcoidosis patients with uveitis was lower than in patients with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 34 vs. 43 nmol/mL (P < .02), whereas the 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level was higher in patients with sarcoidosis than in those with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 132 vs. 108 pmol/L (P = .02). They looked at the 1,25(OH)₂D/25(OH)D ratio; a ratio > 3.5 was strongly associated with an abnormal chest CT-scan (OR = 5.7, P = .003) and granulomas on bronchial biopsy (OR = 14.7, P = .007).

Kavathia et al. looked at whether elevated 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels predicted chronicity of sarcoidosis.⁵ A total of 59 sarcoidosis patients were recruited for the study. Higher serum 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels were associated with patients requiring repeated systemic immunosuppressive therapy or > 1 year of therapy. Increasing quartiles of serum 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level were associated with increased odds of patients having chronic sarcoidosis (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.11-2.99, P = .019).

Because of the higher activated vitamin D levels in sarcoidosis patients, they are at risk for problems with vitamin D supplementation. I have seen two patients develop large numbers of kidney stones after receiving high-dose vitamin D. Sodhi and Aldrich reported on a cohort of 196 sarcoidosis patients who had received vitamin D and compared them with 196 control patients with sarcoidosis who were not receiving vitamin D.⁶ Hypercalcemia was more frequent in the group that received vitamin D (42.3%) than in the group that did not (18.3%, P < .0001). In this study, only a minority (23%) of patients receiving vitamin D had their 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level checked.


Pearl: Lymphocyte count and 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels can be helpful tests in assessing sarcoidosis activity. Patients with sarcoidosis who receive vitamin D should have their 1.25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels monitored.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. El Jammal et al. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2023 Sep 13;40(3):e2023031.

2. Morell F et al. Chest. 2002 Apr;121(4):1239-44.

3. Jones NP et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;100(10):1393-6.

4. Rohmer J et al. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020 Apr 2;28(3):341-7.

5. Kavathia D et al. Respir Med. 2010 Apr;104(4):564–70.

6. Sodhi A and Aldrich T. Am J Med Sci. 2016 Sep;352(3):252-7.

A 40-year-old women is evaluated for liver abnormalities. She had elevated transaminases and alkaline phosphatase. A liver ultrasound showed multiple lesions. She underwent liver biopsy, which showed granulomas. What test results, if abnormal, would be most suggestive of sarcoidosis?

A. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

B. C-reactive protein

C. Lymphocyte count

D. Antinuclear antibodies

The correct answer here is lymphocyte count. Sarcoidosis is in just about every differential diagnosis, as it can involve every organ system. I will share with you a few pearls I have learned over 30 years of taking care of patients with sarcoidosis. Lymphocyte counts drop with active sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis should always be part of the differential when you see lymphopenia. El Jammal et al. studied 90 patients referred for possible granulomatous hepatitis.¹ Seventy-three patients had a final diagnosis of granulomatous hepatitis, and 38 of those patients had sarcoidosis. Lymphopenia had a high specificity (85.7%) for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, with a specificity of 100% in the patients under 50 years old.

Morell and colleagues looked at whether low lymphocyte counts and low lymphocyte percentage were markers of active sarcoidosis.² Forty patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis were prospectively evaluated every 6 months. A low lymphocyte count and a low lymphocyte percentage (< 20%) were detected more frequently in patients with active sarcoidosis than in the patients with asymptomatic sarcoidosis (P < .02 and P < .0001).

Jones et al. looked at lymphopenia as a marker of sarcoidosis in patients presenting with uveitis.³ The study was a retrospective case-control study (112 patients with sarcoidosis-associated uveitis and 398 controls with other forms of uveitis). The mean lymphocyte count for patients with sarcoidosis was 1.43 vs. 2.04 for other causes of uveitis (P ≤ .0001).

Patients with sarcoidosis are at risk of hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and kidney stones. These are common in patients with sarcoidosis, with up to 50% of such patients having hypercalciuria. This is because in sarcoidosis patients 25(OH) vitamin D is converted in granulomas by activated macrophages to 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D, which is the active form of vitamin D.

Several studies have looked at the diagnostic utility of 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels in patients with suspected sarcoidosis. Rohmer and colleagues looked at whether 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels could help with the diagnosis of sarcoidosis as the cause of uveitis.⁴ They found that the level of 25(OH) vitamin D in sarcoidosis patients with uveitis was lower than in patients with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 34 vs. 43 nmol/mL (P < .02), whereas the 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level was higher in patients with sarcoidosis than in those with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 132 vs. 108 pmol/L (P = .02). They looked at the 1,25(OH)₂D/25(OH)D ratio; a ratio > 3.5 was strongly associated with an abnormal chest CT-scan (OR = 5.7, P = .003) and granulomas on bronchial biopsy (OR = 14.7, P = .007).

Kavathia et al. looked at whether elevated 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels predicted chronicity of sarcoidosis.⁵ A total of 59 sarcoidosis patients were recruited for the study. Higher serum 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels were associated with patients requiring repeated systemic immunosuppressive therapy or > 1 year of therapy. Increasing quartiles of serum 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level were associated with increased odds of patients having chronic sarcoidosis (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.11-2.99, P = .019).

Because of the higher activated vitamin D levels in sarcoidosis patients, they are at risk for problems with vitamin D supplementation. I have seen two patients develop large numbers of kidney stones after receiving high-dose vitamin D. Sodhi and Aldrich reported on a cohort of 196 sarcoidosis patients who had received vitamin D and compared them with 196 control patients with sarcoidosis who were not receiving vitamin D.⁶ Hypercalcemia was more frequent in the group that received vitamin D (42.3%) than in the group that did not (18.3%, P < .0001). In this study, only a minority (23%) of patients receiving vitamin D had their 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level checked.


Pearl: Lymphocyte count and 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels can be helpful tests in assessing sarcoidosis activity. Patients with sarcoidosis who receive vitamin D should have their 1.25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels monitored.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. El Jammal et al. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2023 Sep 13;40(3):e2023031.

2. Morell F et al. Chest. 2002 Apr;121(4):1239-44.

3. Jones NP et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;100(10):1393-6.

4. Rohmer J et al. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020 Apr 2;28(3):341-7.

5. Kavathia D et al. Respir Med. 2010 Apr;104(4):564–70.

6. Sodhi A and Aldrich T. Am J Med Sci. 2016 Sep;352(3):252-7.

A 40-year-old women is evaluated for liver abnormalities. She had elevated transaminases and alkaline phosphatase. A liver ultrasound showed multiple lesions. She underwent liver biopsy, which showed granulomas. What test results, if abnormal, would be most suggestive of sarcoidosis?

A. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

B. C-reactive protein

C. Lymphocyte count

D. Antinuclear antibodies

The correct answer here is lymphocyte count. Sarcoidosis is in just about every differential diagnosis, as it can involve every organ system. I will share with you a few pearls I have learned over 30 years of taking care of patients with sarcoidosis. Lymphocyte counts drop with active sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis should always be part of the differential when you see lymphopenia. El Jammal et al. studied 90 patients referred for possible granulomatous hepatitis.¹ Seventy-three patients had a final diagnosis of granulomatous hepatitis, and 38 of those patients had sarcoidosis. Lymphopenia had a high specificity (85.7%) for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, with a specificity of 100% in the patients under 50 years old.

Morell and colleagues looked at whether low lymphocyte counts and low lymphocyte percentage were markers of active sarcoidosis.² Forty patients with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis were prospectively evaluated every 6 months. A low lymphocyte count and a low lymphocyte percentage (< 20%) were detected more frequently in patients with active sarcoidosis than in the patients with asymptomatic sarcoidosis (P < .02 and P < .0001).

Jones et al. looked at lymphopenia as a marker of sarcoidosis in patients presenting with uveitis.³ The study was a retrospective case-control study (112 patients with sarcoidosis-associated uveitis and 398 controls with other forms of uveitis). The mean lymphocyte count for patients with sarcoidosis was 1.43 vs. 2.04 for other causes of uveitis (P ≤ .0001).

Patients with sarcoidosis are at risk of hypercalciuria, hypercalcemia, and kidney stones. These are common in patients with sarcoidosis, with up to 50% of such patients having hypercalciuria. This is because in sarcoidosis patients 25(OH) vitamin D is converted in granulomas by activated macrophages to 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D, which is the active form of vitamin D.

Several studies have looked at the diagnostic utility of 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels in patients with suspected sarcoidosis. Rohmer and colleagues looked at whether 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels could help with the diagnosis of sarcoidosis as the cause of uveitis.⁴ They found that the level of 25(OH) vitamin D in sarcoidosis patients with uveitis was lower than in patients with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 34 vs. 43 nmol/mL (P < .02), whereas the 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level was higher in patients with sarcoidosis than in those with uveitis without sarcoidosis, 132 vs. 108 pmol/L (P = .02). They looked at the 1,25(OH)₂D/25(OH)D ratio; a ratio > 3.5 was strongly associated with an abnormal chest CT-scan (OR = 5.7, P = .003) and granulomas on bronchial biopsy (OR = 14.7, P = .007).

Kavathia et al. looked at whether elevated 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels predicted chronicity of sarcoidosis.⁵ A total of 59 sarcoidosis patients were recruited for the study. Higher serum 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels were associated with patients requiring repeated systemic immunosuppressive therapy or > 1 year of therapy. Increasing quartiles of serum 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level were associated with increased odds of patients having chronic sarcoidosis (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.11-2.99, P = .019).

Because of the higher activated vitamin D levels in sarcoidosis patients, they are at risk for problems with vitamin D supplementation. I have seen two patients develop large numbers of kidney stones after receiving high-dose vitamin D. Sodhi and Aldrich reported on a cohort of 196 sarcoidosis patients who had received vitamin D and compared them with 196 control patients with sarcoidosis who were not receiving vitamin D.⁶ Hypercalcemia was more frequent in the group that received vitamin D (42.3%) than in the group that did not (18.3%, P < .0001). In this study, only a minority (23%) of patients receiving vitamin D had their 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D level checked.


Pearl: Lymphocyte count and 1,25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels can be helpful tests in assessing sarcoidosis activity. Patients with sarcoidosis who receive vitamin D should have their 1.25(OH)₂ vitamin D levels monitored.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. El Jammal et al. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2023 Sep 13;40(3):e2023031.

2. Morell F et al. Chest. 2002 Apr;121(4):1239-44.

3. Jones NP et al. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 Oct;100(10):1393-6.

4. Rohmer J et al. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2020 Apr 2;28(3):341-7.

5. Kavathia D et al. Respir Med. 2010 Apr;104(4):564–70.

6. Sodhi A and Aldrich T. Am J Med Sci. 2016 Sep;352(3):252-7.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Gargling and nasal rinsing with saltwater several times a day appeared to be associated with significantly lower COVID-19 hospitalization rates in a small, randomized, double-blind, controlled study.

“The hypothesis was that interventions that target the upper respiratory tract may reduce the frequency and duration of upper respiratory symptoms associated with COVID-19,” said Sebastian Espinoza, first author of the study; he is with Trinity University, San Antonio.

Adults aged 18-65 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing between 2020 and 2022 were randomly selected to use low- or high-dose saltwater regimens for 14 days at the Harris Health System, Houston. For patients to be included in the study, 14 days had to have elapsed since the onset of any symptoms associated with COVID.

The low dose was 2.13 grams of salt dissolved in 8 ounces of warm water, and the high dose was 6 grams. Participants gargled the saltwater and used it as a nasal rinse for 5 minutes four times a day.

Primary outcomes included frequency and duration of symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection; secondary outcomes included admission to the hospital or the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilatory support, or death.

The findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Fifty-eight people were randomly assigned to either the low-saline (n = 27) or the high-saline (n = 28) group; three patients were lost to follow-up in both these groups. The reference control population consisted of 9,398 people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rates of vaccination were similar for all participants.

Hospitalization rates in the low- (18.5%) and high- (21.4%) saline groups were significantly lower than in the reference control population (58.8%; P < .001). No significant differences were noted in other outcomes among these groups.

The average age of patients in the control population (n = 9,398) was 45 years. The average age was similar in the low- and high-saline groups. In the low-saline group (n = 27), the average age was 39, and in the high-saline group, the average age was 41.

In all three groups, body mass index was between 29.6 and 31.7.

Exclusion criteria included chronic hypertension or participation in another interventional study.
 

‘Low risk, small potential benefit’

Allergist Zach Rubin, MD, a spokesperson for the ACAAI, said in an interview that the findings are in line with other small studies that previously reported some benefit in using nasal saline irrigation and gargling to treat a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“This is a type of intervention that is low risk with some small potential benefit,” he said.

The researchers did not evaluate the potential reason for the saline regimen’s association with fewer hospitalizations, but Dr. Rubin said, “It may be possible that nasal saline irrigation and gargling help improve viral clearance and reduce the risk of microaspiration into the lungs, so it may be possible that this intervention could reduce the risk of pneumonia, which is a major cause of hospitalization.”

Dr. Rubin, who is an allergist at Oak Brook Allergists, Ill., said, “I generally recommend nasal saline irrigation to my patients for allergic rhinitis and viral upper respiratory infections already. It can help reduce symptoms such as nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and sinus pain and pressure.”

The intervention may be reasonable beyond an adult population, he said.

“This could be used for pediatric patients as well, if they are developmentally ready to try this intervention,” he said.

Mr. Espinoza said further study is warranted, but he said that if confirmed in later trials, the simple intervention may be particularly helpful in low-resource settings.

Mr. Espinoza and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Gargling and nasal rinsing with saltwater several times a day appeared to be associated with significantly lower COVID-19 hospitalization rates in a small, randomized, double-blind, controlled study.

“The hypothesis was that interventions that target the upper respiratory tract may reduce the frequency and duration of upper respiratory symptoms associated with COVID-19,” said Sebastian Espinoza, first author of the study; he is with Trinity University, San Antonio.

Adults aged 18-65 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing between 2020 and 2022 were randomly selected to use low- or high-dose saltwater regimens for 14 days at the Harris Health System, Houston. For patients to be included in the study, 14 days had to have elapsed since the onset of any symptoms associated with COVID.

The low dose was 2.13 grams of salt dissolved in 8 ounces of warm water, and the high dose was 6 grams. Participants gargled the saltwater and used it as a nasal rinse for 5 minutes four times a day.

Primary outcomes included frequency and duration of symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection; secondary outcomes included admission to the hospital or the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilatory support, or death.

The findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Fifty-eight people were randomly assigned to either the low-saline (n = 27) or the high-saline (n = 28) group; three patients were lost to follow-up in both these groups. The reference control population consisted of 9,398 people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rates of vaccination were similar for all participants.

Hospitalization rates in the low- (18.5%) and high- (21.4%) saline groups were significantly lower than in the reference control population (58.8%; P < .001). No significant differences were noted in other outcomes among these groups.

The average age of patients in the control population (n = 9,398) was 45 years. The average age was similar in the low- and high-saline groups. In the low-saline group (n = 27), the average age was 39, and in the high-saline group, the average age was 41.

In all three groups, body mass index was between 29.6 and 31.7.

Exclusion criteria included chronic hypertension or participation in another interventional study.
 

‘Low risk, small potential benefit’

Allergist Zach Rubin, MD, a spokesperson for the ACAAI, said in an interview that the findings are in line with other small studies that previously reported some benefit in using nasal saline irrigation and gargling to treat a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“This is a type of intervention that is low risk with some small potential benefit,” he said.

The researchers did not evaluate the potential reason for the saline regimen’s association with fewer hospitalizations, but Dr. Rubin said, “It may be possible that nasal saline irrigation and gargling help improve viral clearance and reduce the risk of microaspiration into the lungs, so it may be possible that this intervention could reduce the risk of pneumonia, which is a major cause of hospitalization.”

Dr. Rubin, who is an allergist at Oak Brook Allergists, Ill., said, “I generally recommend nasal saline irrigation to my patients for allergic rhinitis and viral upper respiratory infections already. It can help reduce symptoms such as nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and sinus pain and pressure.”

The intervention may be reasonable beyond an adult population, he said.

“This could be used for pediatric patients as well, if they are developmentally ready to try this intervention,” he said.

Mr. Espinoza said further study is warranted, but he said that if confirmed in later trials, the simple intervention may be particularly helpful in low-resource settings.

Mr. Espinoza and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Gargling and nasal rinsing with saltwater several times a day appeared to be associated with significantly lower COVID-19 hospitalization rates in a small, randomized, double-blind, controlled study.

“The hypothesis was that interventions that target the upper respiratory tract may reduce the frequency and duration of upper respiratory symptoms associated with COVID-19,” said Sebastian Espinoza, first author of the study; he is with Trinity University, San Antonio.

Adults aged 18-65 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing between 2020 and 2022 were randomly selected to use low- or high-dose saltwater regimens for 14 days at the Harris Health System, Houston. For patients to be included in the study, 14 days had to have elapsed since the onset of any symptoms associated with COVID.

The low dose was 2.13 grams of salt dissolved in 8 ounces of warm water, and the high dose was 6 grams. Participants gargled the saltwater and used it as a nasal rinse for 5 minutes four times a day.

Primary outcomes included frequency and duration of symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection; secondary outcomes included admission to the hospital or the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilatory support, or death.

The findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Fifty-eight people were randomly assigned to either the low-saline (n = 27) or the high-saline (n = 28) group; three patients were lost to follow-up in both these groups. The reference control population consisted of 9,398 people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rates of vaccination were similar for all participants.

Hospitalization rates in the low- (18.5%) and high- (21.4%) saline groups were significantly lower than in the reference control population (58.8%; P < .001). No significant differences were noted in other outcomes among these groups.

The average age of patients in the control population (n = 9,398) was 45 years. The average age was similar in the low- and high-saline groups. In the low-saline group (n = 27), the average age was 39, and in the high-saline group, the average age was 41.

In all three groups, body mass index was between 29.6 and 31.7.

Exclusion criteria included chronic hypertension or participation in another interventional study.
 

‘Low risk, small potential benefit’

Allergist Zach Rubin, MD, a spokesperson for the ACAAI, said in an interview that the findings are in line with other small studies that previously reported some benefit in using nasal saline irrigation and gargling to treat a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

“This is a type of intervention that is low risk with some small potential benefit,” he said.

The researchers did not evaluate the potential reason for the saline regimen’s association with fewer hospitalizations, but Dr. Rubin said, “It may be possible that nasal saline irrigation and gargling help improve viral clearance and reduce the risk of microaspiration into the lungs, so it may be possible that this intervention could reduce the risk of pneumonia, which is a major cause of hospitalization.”

Dr. Rubin, who is an allergist at Oak Brook Allergists, Ill., said, “I generally recommend nasal saline irrigation to my patients for allergic rhinitis and viral upper respiratory infections already. It can help reduce symptoms such as nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and sinus pain and pressure.”

The intervention may be reasonable beyond an adult population, he said.

“This could be used for pediatric patients as well, if they are developmentally ready to try this intervention,” he said.

Mr. Espinoza said further study is warranted, but he said that if confirmed in later trials, the simple intervention may be particularly helpful in low-resource settings.

Mr. Espinoza and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) who start a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) appear to have rates of survival and respiratory-related hospitalization similar to those initiating a non-TNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), results from a large pharmacoepidemiologic study show.

“These results challenge some of the findings in prior literature that perhaps TNFi should be avoided in RA-ILD,” lead study investigator Bryant R. England, MD, PhD,  said in an interview. The findings were presented during a plenary session at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Dr. England, associate professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said that while RA-ILD carries a poor prognosis, a paucity of evidence exists on the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying therapies in this population.

It’s a pleasant surprise “to see that the investigators were unable to demonstrate a significant difference in the risk of respiratory hospitalization or death between people with RA-ILD initiating non-TNFi/JAKi versus TNFi. Here is a unique situation where a so called ‘negative’ study contributes important information. This study provides needed safety data, as they were unable to show that TNFi results in worsening of severe RA-ILD outcomes,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said when asked for comment on the study.

University of Toronto

“While this study does not address the use of these medications for the treatment of RA-ILD, these data suggest that TNFi may remain a treatment option for articular disease in people with RA-ILD,” said Dr. Johnson, who was not involved with the study.

For the study, Dr. England and colleagues drew from Veterans Health Administration data between 2006 and 2018 to identify patients with RA-ILD initiating TNFi or non-TNFi biologic/JAKi for the first time. Those who received ILD-focused therapies such as mycophenolate and antifibrotics were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers used validated administrative algorithms requiring multiple RA and ILD diagnostic codes to identify RA-ILD and used 1:1 propensity score matching to compare TNFi and non-TNFi biologic/JAKi factors such as health care use, comorbidities, and several RA-ILD factors, such as pretreatment forced vital capacity, obtained from electronic health records and administrative data. The primary outcome was a composite of time to respiratory-related hospitalization or death using Cox regression models.

Dr. England reported findings from 237 TNFi initiators and 237 non-TNFi/JAKi initiators. Their mean age was 68 years and 92% were male. After matching, the mean standardized differences of variables in the propensity score model improved, but a few variables remained slightly imbalanced, such as two markers of inflammation, inhaled corticosteroid use, and body mass index. The most frequently prescribed TNFi drugs were adalimumab (51%) and etanercept (37%), and the most frequently prescribed non-TNFi/JAKi drugs were rituximab (53%) and abatacept (28%).

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary outcome between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.60). They also observed no significant differences in respiratory hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or respiratory-related death at 1 and 3 years. In sensitivity analyses with modified cohort eligibility requirements, no significant differences in outcomes were observed between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators.

During his presentation at the meeting, Dr. England posed the question: Are TNFi drugs safe to be used in RA-ILD?

“The answer is: It’s complex,” he said. “Our findings don’t suggest that we should be systematically avoiding TNFis with every single person with RA-ILD. But that’s different than whether there are specific subpopulations of RA-ILD for which the choice of these therapies may differ. Unfortunately, we could not address that in this study. We also could not address whether TNFis have efficacy at stopping, slowing, or reversing progression of the ILD itself. This calls for us as a field to gather together and pursue clinical trials to try to generate robust evidence that can guide these important clinical decisions that we’re making with our patients.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its observational design. “So, despite best efforts to minimize bias with pharmacoepidemiologic designs and approaches, there could still be confounding and selection,” he said. “Additionally, RA-ILD is a heterogeneous disease characterized by different patterns and trajectories. While we did account for several RA- and ILD-related factors, we could not account for all heterogeneity in RA-ILD.”

When asked for comment on the study, session moderator Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, said that the study findings surprised her.

“Sometimes RA patients on TNFis were thought to have more new or worsening ILD vs. [those on] non-TNFi bDMARDs, but most [data were] from older studies where TNFis were used as initial bDMARD in sicker patients,” she told this news organization. “So, data were confounded previously. Even in this study, there may have been channeling bias as it was not a randomized controlled trial. We need a definitive randomized controlled trial to answer this question of what the most optimal therapy for RA-ILD is.”

Dr. England reports receiving consulting fees and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and several coauthors reported financial relationships from various pharmaceutical companies and medical publishers. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pope reports being a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies. She has received grant/research support from AbbVie/Abbott and Eli Lilly and is an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) who start a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) appear to have rates of survival and respiratory-related hospitalization similar to those initiating a non-TNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), results from a large pharmacoepidemiologic study show.

“These results challenge some of the findings in prior literature that perhaps TNFi should be avoided in RA-ILD,” lead study investigator Bryant R. England, MD, PhD,  said in an interview. The findings were presented during a plenary session at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Dr. England, associate professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said that while RA-ILD carries a poor prognosis, a paucity of evidence exists on the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying therapies in this population.

It’s a pleasant surprise “to see that the investigators were unable to demonstrate a significant difference in the risk of respiratory hospitalization or death between people with RA-ILD initiating non-TNFi/JAKi versus TNFi. Here is a unique situation where a so called ‘negative’ study contributes important information. This study provides needed safety data, as they were unable to show that TNFi results in worsening of severe RA-ILD outcomes,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said when asked for comment on the study.

University of Toronto

“While this study does not address the use of these medications for the treatment of RA-ILD, these data suggest that TNFi may remain a treatment option for articular disease in people with RA-ILD,” said Dr. Johnson, who was not involved with the study.

For the study, Dr. England and colleagues drew from Veterans Health Administration data between 2006 and 2018 to identify patients with RA-ILD initiating TNFi or non-TNFi biologic/JAKi for the first time. Those who received ILD-focused therapies such as mycophenolate and antifibrotics were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers used validated administrative algorithms requiring multiple RA and ILD diagnostic codes to identify RA-ILD and used 1:1 propensity score matching to compare TNFi and non-TNFi biologic/JAKi factors such as health care use, comorbidities, and several RA-ILD factors, such as pretreatment forced vital capacity, obtained from electronic health records and administrative data. The primary outcome was a composite of time to respiratory-related hospitalization or death using Cox regression models.

Dr. England reported findings from 237 TNFi initiators and 237 non-TNFi/JAKi initiators. Their mean age was 68 years and 92% were male. After matching, the mean standardized differences of variables in the propensity score model improved, but a few variables remained slightly imbalanced, such as two markers of inflammation, inhaled corticosteroid use, and body mass index. The most frequently prescribed TNFi drugs were adalimumab (51%) and etanercept (37%), and the most frequently prescribed non-TNFi/JAKi drugs were rituximab (53%) and abatacept (28%).

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary outcome between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.60). They also observed no significant differences in respiratory hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or respiratory-related death at 1 and 3 years. In sensitivity analyses with modified cohort eligibility requirements, no significant differences in outcomes were observed between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators.

During his presentation at the meeting, Dr. England posed the question: Are TNFi drugs safe to be used in RA-ILD?

“The answer is: It’s complex,” he said. “Our findings don’t suggest that we should be systematically avoiding TNFis with every single person with RA-ILD. But that’s different than whether there are specific subpopulations of RA-ILD for which the choice of these therapies may differ. Unfortunately, we could not address that in this study. We also could not address whether TNFis have efficacy at stopping, slowing, or reversing progression of the ILD itself. This calls for us as a field to gather together and pursue clinical trials to try to generate robust evidence that can guide these important clinical decisions that we’re making with our patients.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its observational design. “So, despite best efforts to minimize bias with pharmacoepidemiologic designs and approaches, there could still be confounding and selection,” he said. “Additionally, RA-ILD is a heterogeneous disease characterized by different patterns and trajectories. While we did account for several RA- and ILD-related factors, we could not account for all heterogeneity in RA-ILD.”

When asked for comment on the study, session moderator Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, said that the study findings surprised her.

“Sometimes RA patients on TNFis were thought to have more new or worsening ILD vs. [those on] non-TNFi bDMARDs, but most [data were] from older studies where TNFis were used as initial bDMARD in sicker patients,” she told this news organization. “So, data were confounded previously. Even in this study, there may have been channeling bias as it was not a randomized controlled trial. We need a definitive randomized controlled trial to answer this question of what the most optimal therapy for RA-ILD is.”

Dr. England reports receiving consulting fees and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and several coauthors reported financial relationships from various pharmaceutical companies and medical publishers. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pope reports being a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies. She has received grant/research support from AbbVie/Abbott and Eli Lilly and is an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) who start a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) appear to have rates of survival and respiratory-related hospitalization similar to those initiating a non-TNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), results from a large pharmacoepidemiologic study show.

“These results challenge some of the findings in prior literature that perhaps TNFi should be avoided in RA-ILD,” lead study investigator Bryant R. England, MD, PhD,  said in an interview. The findings were presented during a plenary session at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

Dr. England, associate professor of rheumatology and immunology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said that while RA-ILD carries a poor prognosis, a paucity of evidence exists on the effectiveness and safety of disease-modifying therapies in this population.

It’s a pleasant surprise “to see that the investigators were unable to demonstrate a significant difference in the risk of respiratory hospitalization or death between people with RA-ILD initiating non-TNFi/JAKi versus TNFi. Here is a unique situation where a so called ‘negative’ study contributes important information. This study provides needed safety data, as they were unable to show that TNFi results in worsening of severe RA-ILD outcomes,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said when asked for comment on the study.

University of Toronto

“While this study does not address the use of these medications for the treatment of RA-ILD, these data suggest that TNFi may remain a treatment option for articular disease in people with RA-ILD,” said Dr. Johnson, who was not involved with the study.

For the study, Dr. England and colleagues drew from Veterans Health Administration data between 2006 and 2018 to identify patients with RA-ILD initiating TNFi or non-TNFi biologic/JAKi for the first time. Those who received ILD-focused therapies such as mycophenolate and antifibrotics were excluded from the analysis.

The researchers used validated administrative algorithms requiring multiple RA and ILD diagnostic codes to identify RA-ILD and used 1:1 propensity score matching to compare TNFi and non-TNFi biologic/JAKi factors such as health care use, comorbidities, and several RA-ILD factors, such as pretreatment forced vital capacity, obtained from electronic health records and administrative data. The primary outcome was a composite of time to respiratory-related hospitalization or death using Cox regression models.

Dr. England reported findings from 237 TNFi initiators and 237 non-TNFi/JAKi initiators. Their mean age was 68 years and 92% were male. After matching, the mean standardized differences of variables in the propensity score model improved, but a few variables remained slightly imbalanced, such as two markers of inflammation, inhaled corticosteroid use, and body mass index. The most frequently prescribed TNFi drugs were adalimumab (51%) and etanercept (37%), and the most frequently prescribed non-TNFi/JAKi drugs were rituximab (53%) and abatacept (28%).

The researchers observed no significant difference in the primary outcome between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.60). They also observed no significant differences in respiratory hospitalization, all-cause mortality, or respiratory-related death at 1 and 3 years. In sensitivity analyses with modified cohort eligibility requirements, no significant differences in outcomes were observed between non-TNFi/JAKi and TNFi initiators.

During his presentation at the meeting, Dr. England posed the question: Are TNFi drugs safe to be used in RA-ILD?

“The answer is: It’s complex,” he said. “Our findings don’t suggest that we should be systematically avoiding TNFis with every single person with RA-ILD. But that’s different than whether there are specific subpopulations of RA-ILD for which the choice of these therapies may differ. Unfortunately, we could not address that in this study. We also could not address whether TNFis have efficacy at stopping, slowing, or reversing progression of the ILD itself. This calls for us as a field to gather together and pursue clinical trials to try to generate robust evidence that can guide these important clinical decisions that we’re making with our patients.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its observational design. “So, despite best efforts to minimize bias with pharmacoepidemiologic designs and approaches, there could still be confounding and selection,” he said. “Additionally, RA-ILD is a heterogeneous disease characterized by different patterns and trajectories. While we did account for several RA- and ILD-related factors, we could not account for all heterogeneity in RA-ILD.”

When asked for comment on the study, session moderator Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, said that the study findings surprised her.

“Sometimes RA patients on TNFis were thought to have more new or worsening ILD vs. [those on] non-TNFi bDMARDs, but most [data were] from older studies where TNFis were used as initial bDMARD in sicker patients,” she told this news organization. “So, data were confounded previously. Even in this study, there may have been channeling bias as it was not a randomized controlled trial. We need a definitive randomized controlled trial to answer this question of what the most optimal therapy for RA-ILD is.”

Dr. England reports receiving consulting fees and research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, and several coauthors reported financial relationships from various pharmaceutical companies and medical publishers. Dr. Johnson reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pope reports being a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies. She has received grant/research support from AbbVie/Abbott and Eli Lilly and is an adviser for Boehringer Ingelheim.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence summary

Recent UK study shows no difference by timing

A 2022 UK prospective, randomized, multicenter trial assigned 21,104 predominantly White adults (58% men) with hypertension to take their usual antihypertensive medication either in the morning (6 am to 10 am) or evening (8 pm to midnight).¹ A computer algorithm randomized patients, but neither the patients nor the investigators were masked to allocation.

All patient baseline characteristics were equivalent between groups. If troubled by nocturia, patients in the evening group taking diuretics were told to take only the diuretic earlier (6 pm) and subsequently to change to morning if they experienced persistent bothersome symptoms. More patients in the evening administration group than in the morning administration group reported having to change the time of day that they took their diuretic (546 [5.2%] vs 71 [0.7%]; P < .0001).

The median follow-up was 5.2 years. Data were collected at regular intervals through patient completion of online questionnaires and researcher analysis of ­National Health Service data on hospitalization and death. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the primary outcome (a composite of vascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) between the evening and morning administration groups (0.69 events vs 0.72 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

The controversial Hygia Project favored evening

Prior to the UK study was the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial, a prospective, controlled, multicenter study conducted within the primary care setting in Spain. Caucasian Spanish adults (N = 19,168; mean age, 61 years; 56% men) with hypertension were randomly assigned to take all prescribed antihypertensive medication either at bedtime or upon waking.²

The Hygia Project initially sought to establish the value of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared to office blood pressure (BP) monitoring and to explore the prognostic value of sleeping BP.³ The study objectives evolved over time. The randomization process was not clearly described,^2,3 but multiple randomizations were alluded to. The authors stated that “for any of these chronotherapy trials” randomizations were done separately for “each participating center” and “randomization of participants to treatment-time regimen is done separately for each hypertension medication or combination being tested.”

A 2022 UK multicenter trial found no difference between the evening and morning administration groups in a composite outcome of vascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

The baseline characteristics of patients in the evening and morning administration groups were similar, but statistically significant differences existed in BMI (29.6 vs 29.7; P = .030) and sleep-time systolic BP percent decline (9.3 vs 9.0; P < .001). Mean baseline 48-hour BP was 132/77 mm Hg. Hypertension was defined as an awake systolic BP ≥ 135 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mm Hg, or asleep systolic BP ≥ 120 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 70 mm Hg. BP readings were confirmed with 48-hour ABPM. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, a history of substance use disorder, night-shift work, and cardiovascular disease (defined as unstable angina, heart failure, life-threatening arrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, kidney failure, and grade III-IV retinopathy).

Prescribers were free to prescribe medicines from 5 classes (diuretic, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, or beta-blocker) as they thought appropriate, were encouraged to use fixed-dose combination pills, and were told not to use split (eg, twice per day) dosing. Annual ­48-hour ABPM was completed, and patients’ electronic health records were analyzed by blinded investigators. Median follow-up was 6.3 years, and only 84 participants failed to complete the minimum 1-year participation requirement.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome—a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, or stroke—occurred in 1752 patients, favoring the bedtime group (HR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61; P < .001). The calculated number of events was 1130 in the morning administration group and 622 in the evening administration group; the authors did not explicitly report the event numbers in each group. Each component of the composite outcome also favored evening administration (P < .001 for all): cardiovascular death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56), myocardial infarction (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84), coronary revascularization (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), heart failure (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70), and stroke (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63).

The complicated, layered study design and randomization methods limit the ability to critically appraise the study.

Smaller Spanish study also supported evening administration

A prior, smaller, prospective randomized trial conducted by the same researchers as the Hygia Project found even greater benefits to evening BP medication administration.⁴ The 2156 Spanish patients (52% men; average age, 55 years) from multiple primary care offices were randomized 1:1 to BP medication administration either upon awakening or at bedtime. Dozens of baseline characteristics were evenly distributed except for age (55.0 vs 56.3; P = .021) and creatinine (0.96 vs 0.98; P = .028), both of which were lower in the evening group.

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the bedtime group had significantly lower total events (187 events in the morning group vs 68 in the evening group; relative risk [RR] = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.51; P < .001). Individual cardiovascular outcomes also dramatically favored the evening group: total deaths (12 vs 28; P = .008), cardiovascular deaths (3 vs 14; P = .006), cardiovascular disease events (30 vs 74; P < .001), stroke (7 vs 24; P = .001), and heart failure (8 vs 33; P < .001).

Limits of both the UK trial and the Hygia Project trial included single countries of study with a lack of racial and ethnic diversity, and greater nonadherence to the evening administration of the medications.

Recommendations from others

A 2022 consensus statement from the International Society of Hypertension, published before the UK trial, recommended against bedtime dosing until more high-quality data became available. They pointed to evidence showing higher medication adherence with morning dosing, risk for asleep BP dropping, and worsening daytime BP control as reasons to continue morning administration.⁵ Other reviewers have questioned the Hygia Project results due to their reported implausibly large effects on cardiovascular outcomes, noting that independent attempts to verify the methods and the data have proven challenging and are not completed.⁶

Editor’s takeaway

I confess that I was swayed by the results of the Hygia Project; for a year or so, I advised my patients to take at least 1 BP pill at night. But after the UK study came out, I needed to reconsider. I began to worry that the great outcomes of nocturnal therapy may have been a mirage. I have returned to counseling patients to take their BP medications in whichever way fosters consistency while minimizing adverse effects for them.

Evidence summary

Recent UK study shows no difference by timing

A 2022 UK prospective, randomized, multicenter trial assigned 21,104 predominantly White adults (58% men) with hypertension to take their usual antihypertensive medication either in the morning (6 am to 10 am) or evening (8 pm to midnight).¹ A computer algorithm randomized patients, but neither the patients nor the investigators were masked to allocation.

All patient baseline characteristics were equivalent between groups. If troubled by nocturia, patients in the evening group taking diuretics were told to take only the diuretic earlier (6 pm) and subsequently to change to morning if they experienced persistent bothersome symptoms. More patients in the evening administration group than in the morning administration group reported having to change the time of day that they took their diuretic (546 [5.2%] vs 71 [0.7%]; P < .0001).

The median follow-up was 5.2 years. Data were collected at regular intervals through patient completion of online questionnaires and researcher analysis of ­National Health Service data on hospitalization and death. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the primary outcome (a composite of vascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) between the evening and morning administration groups (0.69 events vs 0.72 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

The controversial Hygia Project favored evening

Prior to the UK study was the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial, a prospective, controlled, multicenter study conducted within the primary care setting in Spain. Caucasian Spanish adults (N = 19,168; mean age, 61 years; 56% men) with hypertension were randomly assigned to take all prescribed antihypertensive medication either at bedtime or upon waking.²

The Hygia Project initially sought to establish the value of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared to office blood pressure (BP) monitoring and to explore the prognostic value of sleeping BP.³ The study objectives evolved over time. The randomization process was not clearly described,^2,3 but multiple randomizations were alluded to. The authors stated that “for any of these chronotherapy trials” randomizations were done separately for “each participating center” and “randomization of participants to treatment-time regimen is done separately for each hypertension medication or combination being tested.”

A 2022 UK multicenter trial found no difference between the evening and morning administration groups in a composite outcome of vascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

The baseline characteristics of patients in the evening and morning administration groups were similar, but statistically significant differences existed in BMI (29.6 vs 29.7; P = .030) and sleep-time systolic BP percent decline (9.3 vs 9.0; P < .001). Mean baseline 48-hour BP was 132/77 mm Hg. Hypertension was defined as an awake systolic BP ≥ 135 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mm Hg, or asleep systolic BP ≥ 120 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 70 mm Hg. BP readings were confirmed with 48-hour ABPM. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, a history of substance use disorder, night-shift work, and cardiovascular disease (defined as unstable angina, heart failure, life-threatening arrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, kidney failure, and grade III-IV retinopathy).

Prescribers were free to prescribe medicines from 5 classes (diuretic, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, or beta-blocker) as they thought appropriate, were encouraged to use fixed-dose combination pills, and were told not to use split (eg, twice per day) dosing. Annual ­48-hour ABPM was completed, and patients’ electronic health records were analyzed by blinded investigators. Median follow-up was 6.3 years, and only 84 participants failed to complete the minimum 1-year participation requirement.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome—a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, or stroke—occurred in 1752 patients, favoring the bedtime group (HR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61; P < .001). The calculated number of events was 1130 in the morning administration group and 622 in the evening administration group; the authors did not explicitly report the event numbers in each group. Each component of the composite outcome also favored evening administration (P < .001 for all): cardiovascular death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56), myocardial infarction (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84), coronary revascularization (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), heart failure (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70), and stroke (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63).

The complicated, layered study design and randomization methods limit the ability to critically appraise the study.

Smaller Spanish study also supported evening administration

A prior, smaller, prospective randomized trial conducted by the same researchers as the Hygia Project found even greater benefits to evening BP medication administration.⁴ The 2156 Spanish patients (52% men; average age, 55 years) from multiple primary care offices were randomized 1:1 to BP medication administration either upon awakening or at bedtime. Dozens of baseline characteristics were evenly distributed except for age (55.0 vs 56.3; P = .021) and creatinine (0.96 vs 0.98; P = .028), both of which were lower in the evening group.

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the bedtime group had significantly lower total events (187 events in the morning group vs 68 in the evening group; relative risk [RR] = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.51; P < .001). Individual cardiovascular outcomes also dramatically favored the evening group: total deaths (12 vs 28; P = .008), cardiovascular deaths (3 vs 14; P = .006), cardiovascular disease events (30 vs 74; P < .001), stroke (7 vs 24; P = .001), and heart failure (8 vs 33; P < .001).

Limits of both the UK trial and the Hygia Project trial included single countries of study with a lack of racial and ethnic diversity, and greater nonadherence to the evening administration of the medications.

Recommendations from others

A 2022 consensus statement from the International Society of Hypertension, published before the UK trial, recommended against bedtime dosing until more high-quality data became available. They pointed to evidence showing higher medication adherence with morning dosing, risk for asleep BP dropping, and worsening daytime BP control as reasons to continue morning administration.⁵ Other reviewers have questioned the Hygia Project results due to their reported implausibly large effects on cardiovascular outcomes, noting that independent attempts to verify the methods and the data have proven challenging and are not completed.⁶

Editor’s takeaway

I confess that I was swayed by the results of the Hygia Project; for a year or so, I advised my patients to take at least 1 BP pill at night. But after the UK study came out, I needed to reconsider. I began to worry that the great outcomes of nocturnal therapy may have been a mirage. I have returned to counseling patients to take their BP medications in whichever way fosters consistency while minimizing adverse effects for them.

Evidence summary

Recent UK study shows no difference by timing

A 2022 UK prospective, randomized, multicenter trial assigned 21,104 predominantly White adults (58% men) with hypertension to take their usual antihypertensive medication either in the morning (6 am to 10 am) or evening (8 pm to midnight).¹ A computer algorithm randomized patients, but neither the patients nor the investigators were masked to allocation.

All patient baseline characteristics were equivalent between groups. If troubled by nocturia, patients in the evening group taking diuretics were told to take only the diuretic earlier (6 pm) and subsequently to change to morning if they experienced persistent bothersome symptoms. More patients in the evening administration group than in the morning administration group reported having to change the time of day that they took their diuretic (546 [5.2%] vs 71 [0.7%]; P < .0001).

The median follow-up was 5.2 years. Data were collected at regular intervals through patient completion of online questionnaires and researcher analysis of ­National Health Service data on hospitalization and death. The intention-to-treat analysis showed no difference in the primary outcome (a composite of vascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) between the evening and morning administration groups (0.69 events vs 0.72 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.10; P = .53).

The controversial Hygia Project favored evening

Prior to the UK study was the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial, a prospective, controlled, multicenter study conducted within the primary care setting in Spain. Caucasian Spanish adults (N = 19,168; mean age, 61 years; 56% men) with hypertension were randomly assigned to take all prescribed antihypertensive medication either at bedtime or upon waking.²

The Hygia Project initially sought to establish the value of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) compared to office blood pressure (BP) monitoring and to explore the prognostic value of sleeping BP.³ The study objectives evolved over time. The randomization process was not clearly described,^2,3 but multiple randomizations were alluded to. The authors stated that “for any of these chronotherapy trials” randomizations were done separately for “each participating center” and “randomization of participants to treatment-time regimen is done separately for each hypertension medication or combination being tested.”

A 2022 UK multicenter trial found no difference between the evening and morning administration groups in a composite outcome of vascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke.

The baseline characteristics of patients in the evening and morning administration groups were similar, but statistically significant differences existed in BMI (29.6 vs 29.7; P = .030) and sleep-time systolic BP percent decline (9.3 vs 9.0; P < .001). Mean baseline 48-hour BP was 132/77 mm Hg. Hypertension was defined as an awake systolic BP ≥ 135 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mm Hg, or asleep systolic BP ≥ 120 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 70 mm Hg. BP readings were confirmed with 48-hour ABPM. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, a history of substance use disorder, night-shift work, and cardiovascular disease (defined as unstable angina, heart failure, life-threatening arrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, kidney failure, and grade III-IV retinopathy).

Prescribers were free to prescribe medicines from 5 classes (diuretic, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, or beta-blocker) as they thought appropriate, were encouraged to use fixed-dose combination pills, and were told not to use split (eg, twice per day) dosing. Annual ­48-hour ABPM was completed, and patients’ electronic health records were analyzed by blinded investigators. Median follow-up was 6.3 years, and only 84 participants failed to complete the minimum 1-year participation requirement.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome—a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, heart failure, or stroke—occurred in 1752 patients, favoring the bedtime group (HR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61; P < .001). The calculated number of events was 1130 in the morning administration group and 622 in the evening administration group; the authors did not explicitly report the event numbers in each group. Each component of the composite outcome also favored evening administration (P < .001 for all): cardiovascular death (HR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.56), myocardial infarction (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.52-0.84), coronary revascularization (HR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75), heart failure (HR = 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.70), and stroke (HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63).

The complicated, layered study design and randomization methods limit the ability to critically appraise the study.

Smaller Spanish study also supported evening administration

A prior, smaller, prospective randomized trial conducted by the same researchers as the Hygia Project found even greater benefits to evening BP medication administration.⁴ The 2156 Spanish patients (52% men; average age, 55 years) from multiple primary care offices were randomized 1:1 to BP medication administration either upon awakening or at bedtime. Dozens of baseline characteristics were evenly distributed except for age (55.0 vs 56.3; P = .021) and creatinine (0.96 vs 0.98; P = .028), both of which were lower in the evening group.

After a median follow-up of 5.6 years, the bedtime group had significantly lower total events (187 events in the morning group vs 68 in the evening group; relative risk [RR] = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.51; P < .001). Individual cardiovascular outcomes also dramatically favored the evening group: total deaths (12 vs 28; P = .008), cardiovascular deaths (3 vs 14; P = .006), cardiovascular disease events (30 vs 74; P < .001), stroke (7 vs 24; P = .001), and heart failure (8 vs 33; P < .001).

Limits of both the UK trial and the Hygia Project trial included single countries of study with a lack of racial and ethnic diversity, and greater nonadherence to the evening administration of the medications.

Recommendations from others

A 2022 consensus statement from the International Society of Hypertension, published before the UK trial, recommended against bedtime dosing until more high-quality data became available. They pointed to evidence showing higher medication adherence with morning dosing, risk for asleep BP dropping, and worsening daytime BP control as reasons to continue morning administration.⁵ Other reviewers have questioned the Hygia Project results due to their reported implausibly large effects on cardiovascular outcomes, noting that independent attempts to verify the methods and the data have proven challenging and are not completed.⁶

Editor’s takeaway

I confess that I was swayed by the results of the Hygia Project; for a year or so, I advised my patients to take at least 1 BP pill at night. But after the UK study came out, I needed to reconsider. I began to worry that the great outcomes of nocturnal therapy may have been a mirage. I have returned to counseling patients to take their BP medications in whichever way fosters consistency while minimizing adverse effects for them.

A large Canadian clinical trial has found that using small-volume tubes to collect blood samples for laboratory testing of intensive care unit patients can reduce blood transfusions without affecting lab results.

“We showed in a large pragmatic cluster trial that automatically collect less blood for laboratory testing reduced red blood cell transfusions by about 10 units of red blood cells per 100 patients in the ICU,” lead study author Deborah M. Siegal, MD, associate professor at the University of Ottawa and scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said.

The study was coordinated by the Population Health Research Institute, an affiliate of McMaster University in Hamilton (Ont.) Health Sciences, where Dr. Siegal worked before moving to Ottawa.

The STRATUS randomized clinical trial, published in JAMA, involved 25 adult medical-surgical ICUs across Canada, where 21,201 patients were randomized to either standard-volume or small-volume tubes for collecting blood samples. During the course of the study, each site switched to the small-volume collection tubes.

“We also showed there were no negative effects on lab testing, and by that we measured the sufficiency of  the specimens,” Dr. Siegal added. “We were able to show that there wasn’t a problem with the amount of blood that was available for the tests to be done.”

The samples were collected from February 2019 through January 2021, through the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Dr. Siegal explained that 6,210 patients admitted early in the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis, but were included in secondary analyses.

 

Study results

While the study found no significant difference in RBC units per patient per ICU stage – a relative risk of .91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.05; P = .19), it did find an absolute reduction of 7.24 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay. 

Findings from the secondary analyses, which included 27,411 patients, were:

• A 12% reduction in RBC units per patient per ICU stay after switching from standard-volume to small-volume tubes (RR, 0.88; 95%  CI, 0.77-1; P = .04).
• An absolute reduction of 9.84 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay (95% CI, 0.24-20.76).

In the primary analysis population, the median transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin was not statistically different between the standard- and small-volume collection tube groups, with an average difference of 0.1 g/dL (95% CI, –0.04 to .23), but it was lower in the secondary population, with a mean difference of .17 g/dL (95% CI, 0.05-0.29).

“Those patients that we analyzed in the secondary analysis population received about 36,000 units of blood, just in 25 ICU units in Canada in less than 2 years,” Dr. Siegal said. “If we saved 10 units per 100 patients, that’s 1,500 units of blood. That really speaks to a small effect at the individual patient level but really potential for widespread effect. We are now in a period of blood product shortage not only in Canada but worldwide.”

 

First clinical trial for small tubes

Dr. Siegal noted this was the first clinical trial to compare standard- and small-volume blood collection tools, “and also to show there is both a benefit and a lack of harm,” Dr. Siegal said. “We thought that a randomized trial was the best way to move the needle. If we could design a trial of a large population of patients to show benefit and no harm, it would be a win, and that’s in fact what happened.”

She added, “The tubes essentially have the same cost, work the same, and go on the same equipment the same way the standard-volume tubes do, so it wasn’t a practice change for people in the hospital.”

The study also found an identical low rate of unusable specimens did not differ regardless of the type of collection tube: less than .03%.

Dr. Siegal said the study group is collaborating with hematology stakeholders in Canada, including Canadian Blood Services, which provides blood plasma to the country’s provincial and territorial health systems, and is reaching out to the American Society of Hematology.

“We’re going to target both hematologists and critical  care providers and, even more broadly than the critical care community, hospitals, because anemia is big problem in hospitals,” Dr. Siegal said. “I think we can think about this more broadly.”

The study received funding from the Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. Dr. Siegal disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Roche.

A large Canadian clinical trial has found that using small-volume tubes to collect blood samples for laboratory testing of intensive care unit patients can reduce blood transfusions without affecting lab results.

“We showed in a large pragmatic cluster trial that automatically collect less blood for laboratory testing reduced red blood cell transfusions by about 10 units of red blood cells per 100 patients in the ICU,” lead study author Deborah M. Siegal, MD, associate professor at the University of Ottawa and scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said.

The study was coordinated by the Population Health Research Institute, an affiliate of McMaster University in Hamilton (Ont.) Health Sciences, where Dr. Siegal worked before moving to Ottawa.

The STRATUS randomized clinical trial, published in JAMA, involved 25 adult medical-surgical ICUs across Canada, where 21,201 patients were randomized to either standard-volume or small-volume tubes for collecting blood samples. During the course of the study, each site switched to the small-volume collection tubes.

“We also showed there were no negative effects on lab testing, and by that we measured the sufficiency of  the specimens,” Dr. Siegal added. “We were able to show that there wasn’t a problem with the amount of blood that was available for the tests to be done.”

The samples were collected from February 2019 through January 2021, through the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Dr. Siegal explained that 6,210 patients admitted early in the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis, but were included in secondary analyses.

 

Study results

While the study found no significant difference in RBC units per patient per ICU stage – a relative risk of .91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.05; P = .19), it did find an absolute reduction of 7.24 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay. 

Findings from the secondary analyses, which included 27,411 patients, were:

• A 12% reduction in RBC units per patient per ICU stay after switching from standard-volume to small-volume tubes (RR, 0.88; 95%  CI, 0.77-1; P = .04).
• An absolute reduction of 9.84 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay (95% CI, 0.24-20.76).

In the primary analysis population, the median transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin was not statistically different between the standard- and small-volume collection tube groups, with an average difference of 0.1 g/dL (95% CI, –0.04 to .23), but it was lower in the secondary population, with a mean difference of .17 g/dL (95% CI, 0.05-0.29).

“Those patients that we analyzed in the secondary analysis population received about 36,000 units of blood, just in 25 ICU units in Canada in less than 2 years,” Dr. Siegal said. “If we saved 10 units per 100 patients, that’s 1,500 units of blood. That really speaks to a small effect at the individual patient level but really potential for widespread effect. We are now in a period of blood product shortage not only in Canada but worldwide.”

 

First clinical trial for small tubes

Dr. Siegal noted this was the first clinical trial to compare standard- and small-volume blood collection tools, “and also to show there is both a benefit and a lack of harm,” Dr. Siegal said. “We thought that a randomized trial was the best way to move the needle. If we could design a trial of a large population of patients to show benefit and no harm, it would be a win, and that’s in fact what happened.”

She added, “The tubes essentially have the same cost, work the same, and go on the same equipment the same way the standard-volume tubes do, so it wasn’t a practice change for people in the hospital.”

The study also found an identical low rate of unusable specimens did not differ regardless of the type of collection tube: less than .03%.

Dr. Siegal said the study group is collaborating with hematology stakeholders in Canada, including Canadian Blood Services, which provides blood plasma to the country’s provincial and territorial health systems, and is reaching out to the American Society of Hematology.

“We’re going to target both hematologists and critical  care providers and, even more broadly than the critical care community, hospitals, because anemia is big problem in hospitals,” Dr. Siegal said. “I think we can think about this more broadly.”

The study received funding from the Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. Dr. Siegal disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Roche.

A large Canadian clinical trial has found that using small-volume tubes to collect blood samples for laboratory testing of intensive care unit patients can reduce blood transfusions without affecting lab results.

“We showed in a large pragmatic cluster trial that automatically collect less blood for laboratory testing reduced red blood cell transfusions by about 10 units of red blood cells per 100 patients in the ICU,” lead study author Deborah M. Siegal, MD, associate professor at the University of Ottawa and scientist at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, said.

The study was coordinated by the Population Health Research Institute, an affiliate of McMaster University in Hamilton (Ont.) Health Sciences, where Dr. Siegal worked before moving to Ottawa.

The STRATUS randomized clinical trial, published in JAMA, involved 25 adult medical-surgical ICUs across Canada, where 21,201 patients were randomized to either standard-volume or small-volume tubes for collecting blood samples. During the course of the study, each site switched to the small-volume collection tubes.

“We also showed there were no negative effects on lab testing, and by that we measured the sufficiency of  the specimens,” Dr. Siegal added. “We were able to show that there wasn’t a problem with the amount of blood that was available for the tests to be done.”

The samples were collected from February 2019 through January 2021, through the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Dr. Siegal explained that 6,210 patients admitted early in the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded from the primary analysis, but were included in secondary analyses.

 

Study results

While the study found no significant difference in RBC units per patient per ICU stage – a relative risk of .91 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.05; P = .19), it did find an absolute reduction of 7.24 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay. 

Findings from the secondary analyses, which included 27,411 patients, were:

• A 12% reduction in RBC units per patient per ICU stay after switching from standard-volume to small-volume tubes (RR, 0.88; 95%  CI, 0.77-1; P = .04).
• An absolute reduction of 9.84 RBC units/100 patients per ICU stay (95% CI, 0.24-20.76).

In the primary analysis population, the median transfusion-adjusted hemoglobin was not statistically different between the standard- and small-volume collection tube groups, with an average difference of 0.1 g/dL (95% CI, –0.04 to .23), but it was lower in the secondary population, with a mean difference of .17 g/dL (95% CI, 0.05-0.29).

“Those patients that we analyzed in the secondary analysis population received about 36,000 units of blood, just in 25 ICU units in Canada in less than 2 years,” Dr. Siegal said. “If we saved 10 units per 100 patients, that’s 1,500 units of blood. That really speaks to a small effect at the individual patient level but really potential for widespread effect. We are now in a period of blood product shortage not only in Canada but worldwide.”

 

First clinical trial for small tubes

Dr. Siegal noted this was the first clinical trial to compare standard- and small-volume blood collection tools, “and also to show there is both a benefit and a lack of harm,” Dr. Siegal said. “We thought that a randomized trial was the best way to move the needle. If we could design a trial of a large population of patients to show benefit and no harm, it would be a win, and that’s in fact what happened.”

She added, “The tubes essentially have the same cost, work the same, and go on the same equipment the same way the standard-volume tubes do, so it wasn’t a practice change for people in the hospital.”

The study also found an identical low rate of unusable specimens did not differ regardless of the type of collection tube: less than .03%.

Dr. Siegal said the study group is collaborating with hematology stakeholders in Canada, including Canadian Blood Services, which provides blood plasma to the country’s provincial and territorial health systems, and is reaching out to the American Society of Hematology.

“We’re going to target both hematologists and critical  care providers and, even more broadly than the critical care community, hospitals, because anemia is big problem in hospitals,” Dr. Siegal said. “I think we can think about this more broadly.”

The study received funding from the Hamilton Academic Health Sciences Organization. Dr. Siegal disclosed relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Roche.

As the aging population grows and telehealth expands in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, an emerging trend of in-home care is reshaping how patients access and receive physical therapy services.

Partnerships between hospitals and home health companies are increasing access to rehabilitation services not only for older adults but also for people in rural areas, those without reliable transportation, and patients with injuries that hinder their driving abilities.

“We find more and more that physical therapy at their home, instead of coming to an outpatient facility, is something more and more folks are requesting,” said Bill Benoit, MBA, chief operating officer of University Hospitals, Cleveland. “In this post-COVID environment, people are getting all different types of services in their home when they’re available, and this is one of them. The pandemic sped up the process of us moving away from the traditional brick and mortar hospital.”

UH recently announced a partnership with Luna Physical Therapy, a company founded in 2018 that provides home services. Luna has teamed up with more than two dozen other hospitals in the United States to offer home-based rehabilitation, according to the company.

The process for arranging in-home therapies through hospital-clinic partnerships is like any other inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, Mr. Benoit said: A patient meets with a specialist or primary care practitioner, they discuss options, and eventually the clinician recommends physical therapy. The only difference here, he said, is rather than going to a separate facility or a hospital, the patient logs onto a mobile app that matches them with a physical therapist on the basis of their location, needs, and the times they are available.

The prescribing physician oversees the patient’s progress through notes provided by the therapist.

“For the primary care physician or surgeon, they’re not going to see much of a difference,” Mr. Benoit said. “This just adds to that list of options for patients.”
 

Safer, more productive PT

A study, published in the journal Family Practice, found that 76% of patients who are prescribed physical therapy do not initiate the services after it has been recommended.

Aside from the convenience and expanded accessibility for patients, the home therapy option can be more productive, said Denise Wagner, PT, DPT, a physical therapist with Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

“Home is safer for many patients, but home is also more engaging and motivating,” she said. “Home health clinicians are experts in using whatever they find in the home environment as equipment; many people have stairs in their home, so we can use the rail as something to hold. If patient likes to walk their dog, we can use putting a leash on dog as balance activity.”

Therapy in the home setting helps physical therapists customize programs to fit each patient’s lifestyle, said Gira Shah, PT, a physical therapist with Providence Home Services in Seattle.

For example, patients generally want to know how to function within their own space – navigate their kitchens to make food or get in and out of their bathtubs. Staying in that space allows therapists to focus on those specific goals, Ms. Shah said. “It’s more of a functional therapy. The beauty of this [is that] as therapists we’re trying to assess, ‘what does the patient need to be independent?’ ”

The consulting firm McKinsey predicts that as much as $265 billion in health care services for Medicare recipients will be provided within the home by 2025.

The obvious question is: Why would hospitals partner with clinics rather than offer in-home services on their own?

The answer, like most things in health care, boils down to money.

The billing and documentation system that they use is more efficient than anything hospitals have, said John Brickley, PT, MA, vice president and physical therapist at MedStar Health, a health care system in Maryland and the Washington, D.C., area. MedStar and Luna announced a partnership last June.

“We would financially fall on our face if we tried to use our own billing systems; it would take too much time,” Mr. Brickley said. “Do we need them from a quality-of-care standpoint? No. They have the type of technology that’s not at our disposal.”

Patients should be aware of the difference between home-based PT and other health services for homebound patients, Mr. Brickley said. Medicare considers a patient homebound if they need the help of another person or medical equipment to leave their home or if their doctor believes their condition would worsen with greater mobility.

From the perspective of an insurance company, a home therapy session arranged by a hospital-clinic partnership is an ambulatory appointment and uses the same charging mechanism as most other visits. For a home health care visit, patients must qualify as homebound.

Home-based PT can be used for conditions including neurologic issues, bone and joint problems, balance, and fall deconditioning and prevention. But if a patient needs heavy equipment that cannot be transported, outpatient services are more practical.

That should be determined by the primary care practitioner or specialist evaluating each patient, said Palak Shah, PT, cofounder and head of clinical services at Luna.

“Primary care physicians play a huge role – that’s where patients express their initial concerns,” she said. “It’s up to them to make patients aware about all the options.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the aging population grows and telehealth expands in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, an emerging trend of in-home care is reshaping how patients access and receive physical therapy services.

Partnerships between hospitals and home health companies are increasing access to rehabilitation services not only for older adults but also for people in rural areas, those without reliable transportation, and patients with injuries that hinder their driving abilities.

“We find more and more that physical therapy at their home, instead of coming to an outpatient facility, is something more and more folks are requesting,” said Bill Benoit, MBA, chief operating officer of University Hospitals, Cleveland. “In this post-COVID environment, people are getting all different types of services in their home when they’re available, and this is one of them. The pandemic sped up the process of us moving away from the traditional brick and mortar hospital.”

UH recently announced a partnership with Luna Physical Therapy, a company founded in 2018 that provides home services. Luna has teamed up with more than two dozen other hospitals in the United States to offer home-based rehabilitation, according to the company.

The process for arranging in-home therapies through hospital-clinic partnerships is like any other inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, Mr. Benoit said: A patient meets with a specialist or primary care practitioner, they discuss options, and eventually the clinician recommends physical therapy. The only difference here, he said, is rather than going to a separate facility or a hospital, the patient logs onto a mobile app that matches them with a physical therapist on the basis of their location, needs, and the times they are available.

The prescribing physician oversees the patient’s progress through notes provided by the therapist.

“For the primary care physician or surgeon, they’re not going to see much of a difference,” Mr. Benoit said. “This just adds to that list of options for patients.”
 

Safer, more productive PT

A study, published in the journal Family Practice, found that 76% of patients who are prescribed physical therapy do not initiate the services after it has been recommended.

Aside from the convenience and expanded accessibility for patients, the home therapy option can be more productive, said Denise Wagner, PT, DPT, a physical therapist with Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

“Home is safer for many patients, but home is also more engaging and motivating,” she said. “Home health clinicians are experts in using whatever they find in the home environment as equipment; many people have stairs in their home, so we can use the rail as something to hold. If patient likes to walk their dog, we can use putting a leash on dog as balance activity.”

Therapy in the home setting helps physical therapists customize programs to fit each patient’s lifestyle, said Gira Shah, PT, a physical therapist with Providence Home Services in Seattle.

For example, patients generally want to know how to function within their own space – navigate their kitchens to make food or get in and out of their bathtubs. Staying in that space allows therapists to focus on those specific goals, Ms. Shah said. “It’s more of a functional therapy. The beauty of this [is that] as therapists we’re trying to assess, ‘what does the patient need to be independent?’ ”

The consulting firm McKinsey predicts that as much as $265 billion in health care services for Medicare recipients will be provided within the home by 2025.

The obvious question is: Why would hospitals partner with clinics rather than offer in-home services on their own?

The answer, like most things in health care, boils down to money.

The billing and documentation system that they use is more efficient than anything hospitals have, said John Brickley, PT, MA, vice president and physical therapist at MedStar Health, a health care system in Maryland and the Washington, D.C., area. MedStar and Luna announced a partnership last June.

“We would financially fall on our face if we tried to use our own billing systems; it would take too much time,” Mr. Brickley said. “Do we need them from a quality-of-care standpoint? No. They have the type of technology that’s not at our disposal.”

Patients should be aware of the difference between home-based PT and other health services for homebound patients, Mr. Brickley said. Medicare considers a patient homebound if they need the help of another person or medical equipment to leave their home or if their doctor believes their condition would worsen with greater mobility.

From the perspective of an insurance company, a home therapy session arranged by a hospital-clinic partnership is an ambulatory appointment and uses the same charging mechanism as most other visits. For a home health care visit, patients must qualify as homebound.

Home-based PT can be used for conditions including neurologic issues, bone and joint problems, balance, and fall deconditioning and prevention. But if a patient needs heavy equipment that cannot be transported, outpatient services are more practical.

That should be determined by the primary care practitioner or specialist evaluating each patient, said Palak Shah, PT, cofounder and head of clinical services at Luna.

“Primary care physicians play a huge role – that’s where patients express their initial concerns,” she said. “It’s up to them to make patients aware about all the options.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the aging population grows and telehealth expands in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, an emerging trend of in-home care is reshaping how patients access and receive physical therapy services.

Partnerships between hospitals and home health companies are increasing access to rehabilitation services not only for older adults but also for people in rural areas, those without reliable transportation, and patients with injuries that hinder their driving abilities.

“We find more and more that physical therapy at their home, instead of coming to an outpatient facility, is something more and more folks are requesting,” said Bill Benoit, MBA, chief operating officer of University Hospitals, Cleveland. “In this post-COVID environment, people are getting all different types of services in their home when they’re available, and this is one of them. The pandemic sped up the process of us moving away from the traditional brick and mortar hospital.”

UH recently announced a partnership with Luna Physical Therapy, a company founded in 2018 that provides home services. Luna has teamed up with more than two dozen other hospitals in the United States to offer home-based rehabilitation, according to the company.

The process for arranging in-home therapies through hospital-clinic partnerships is like any other inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, Mr. Benoit said: A patient meets with a specialist or primary care practitioner, they discuss options, and eventually the clinician recommends physical therapy. The only difference here, he said, is rather than going to a separate facility or a hospital, the patient logs onto a mobile app that matches them with a physical therapist on the basis of their location, needs, and the times they are available.

The prescribing physician oversees the patient’s progress through notes provided by the therapist.

“For the primary care physician or surgeon, they’re not going to see much of a difference,” Mr. Benoit said. “This just adds to that list of options for patients.”
 

Safer, more productive PT

A study, published in the journal Family Practice, found that 76% of patients who are prescribed physical therapy do not initiate the services after it has been recommended.

Aside from the convenience and expanded accessibility for patients, the home therapy option can be more productive, said Denise Wagner, PT, DPT, a physical therapist with Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

“Home is safer for many patients, but home is also more engaging and motivating,” she said. “Home health clinicians are experts in using whatever they find in the home environment as equipment; many people have stairs in their home, so we can use the rail as something to hold. If patient likes to walk their dog, we can use putting a leash on dog as balance activity.”

Therapy in the home setting helps physical therapists customize programs to fit each patient’s lifestyle, said Gira Shah, PT, a physical therapist with Providence Home Services in Seattle.

For example, patients generally want to know how to function within their own space – navigate their kitchens to make food or get in and out of their bathtubs. Staying in that space allows therapists to focus on those specific goals, Ms. Shah said. “It’s more of a functional therapy. The beauty of this [is that] as therapists we’re trying to assess, ‘what does the patient need to be independent?’ ”

The consulting firm McKinsey predicts that as much as $265 billion in health care services for Medicare recipients will be provided within the home by 2025.

The obvious question is: Why would hospitals partner with clinics rather than offer in-home services on their own?

The answer, like most things in health care, boils down to money.

The billing and documentation system that they use is more efficient than anything hospitals have, said John Brickley, PT, MA, vice president and physical therapist at MedStar Health, a health care system in Maryland and the Washington, D.C., area. MedStar and Luna announced a partnership last June.

“We would financially fall on our face if we tried to use our own billing systems; it would take too much time,” Mr. Brickley said. “Do we need them from a quality-of-care standpoint? No. They have the type of technology that’s not at our disposal.”

Patients should be aware of the difference between home-based PT and other health services for homebound patients, Mr. Brickley said. Medicare considers a patient homebound if they need the help of another person or medical equipment to leave their home or if their doctor believes their condition would worsen with greater mobility.

From the perspective of an insurance company, a home therapy session arranged by a hospital-clinic partnership is an ambulatory appointment and uses the same charging mechanism as most other visits. For a home health care visit, patients must qualify as homebound.

Home-based PT can be used for conditions including neurologic issues, bone and joint problems, balance, and fall deconditioning and prevention. But if a patient needs heavy equipment that cannot be transported, outpatient services are more practical.

That should be determined by the primary care practitioner or specialist evaluating each patient, said Palak Shah, PT, cofounder and head of clinical services at Luna.

“Primary care physicians play a huge role – that’s where patients express their initial concerns,” she said. “It’s up to them to make patients aware about all the options.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regularly using marijuana can significantly increase a person’s risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke, according to a pair of new studies that will be presented at a major upcoming medical conference.

People who use marijuana daily have a 34% increased risk of heart failure, compared with people who don’t use the drug, according to one of the new studies.

The new findings leverage health data from 157,000 people in the National Institutes of Health “All of Us” research program. Researchers analyzed whether marijuana users were more likely to experience heart failure than nonusers over the course of nearly 4 years. The results indicated that coronary artery disease was behind marijuana users’ increased risk. (Coronary artery disease is the buildup of plaque on the walls of the arteries that supply blood to the heart.)

The research was conducted by a team at Medstar Health, a large Maryland health care system that operates 10 hospitals plus hundreds of clinics. The findings will be presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2023 in Philadelphia.

“Our results should encourage more researchers to study the use of marijuana to better understand its health implications, especially on cardiovascular risk,” said researcher Yakubu Bene-Alhasan, MD, MPH, a doctor at Medstar Health in Baltimore. “We want to provide the population with high-quality information on marijuana use and to help inform policy decisions at the state level, to educate patients, and to guide health care professionals.”

About one in five people in the United States use marijuana, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The majority of U.S. states allow marijuana to be used legally for medical purposes, and more than 20 states have legalized recreational marijuana, a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows. 

A second study that will be presented at the conference shows that older people with any combination of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol who use marijuana have an increased risk for a major heart or brain event, compared with people who never used the drug. 

The researchers analyzed data for more than 28,000 people age 65 and older who had health conditions that put them at risk for heart problems and whose medical records showed they were marijuana users but not tobacco users. The results showed at least a 20% increased risk of heart attack, stroke, cardiac arrest, or arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). 

The findings are significant because medical professionals have long said that research on the long-term health effects of using marijuana are limited. 

“The latest research about cannabis use indicates that smoking and inhaling cannabis increases concentrations of blood carboxyhemoglobin (carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas), tar (partly burned combustible matter) similar to the effects of inhaling a tobacco cigarette, both of which have been linked to heart muscle disease, chest pain, heart rhythm disturbances, heart attacks and other serious conditions,” said Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, chair of the volunteer writing group for the 2020 American Heart Association Scientific Statement: Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, in a statement. “Together with the results of these two research studies, the cardiovascular risks of cannabis use are becoming clearer and should be carefully considered and monitored by health care professionals and the public.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Regularly using marijuana can significantly increase a person’s risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke, according to a pair of new studies that will be presented at a major upcoming medical conference.

People who use marijuana daily have a 34% increased risk of heart failure, compared with people who don’t use the drug, according to one of the new studies.

The new findings leverage health data from 157,000 people in the National Institutes of Health “All of Us” research program. Researchers analyzed whether marijuana users were more likely to experience heart failure than nonusers over the course of nearly 4 years. The results indicated that coronary artery disease was behind marijuana users’ increased risk. (Coronary artery disease is the buildup of plaque on the walls of the arteries that supply blood to the heart.)

The research was conducted by a team at Medstar Health, a large Maryland health care system that operates 10 hospitals plus hundreds of clinics. The findings will be presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2023 in Philadelphia.

“Our results should encourage more researchers to study the use of marijuana to better understand its health implications, especially on cardiovascular risk,” said researcher Yakubu Bene-Alhasan, MD, MPH, a doctor at Medstar Health in Baltimore. “We want to provide the population with high-quality information on marijuana use and to help inform policy decisions at the state level, to educate patients, and to guide health care professionals.”

About one in five people in the United States use marijuana, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The majority of U.S. states allow marijuana to be used legally for medical purposes, and more than 20 states have legalized recreational marijuana, a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows. 

A second study that will be presented at the conference shows that older people with any combination of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol who use marijuana have an increased risk for a major heart or brain event, compared with people who never used the drug. 

The researchers analyzed data for more than 28,000 people age 65 and older who had health conditions that put them at risk for heart problems and whose medical records showed they were marijuana users but not tobacco users. The results showed at least a 20% increased risk of heart attack, stroke, cardiac arrest, or arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). 

The findings are significant because medical professionals have long said that research on the long-term health effects of using marijuana are limited. 

“The latest research about cannabis use indicates that smoking and inhaling cannabis increases concentrations of blood carboxyhemoglobin (carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas), tar (partly burned combustible matter) similar to the effects of inhaling a tobacco cigarette, both of which have been linked to heart muscle disease, chest pain, heart rhythm disturbances, heart attacks and other serious conditions,” said Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, chair of the volunteer writing group for the 2020 American Heart Association Scientific Statement: Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, in a statement. “Together with the results of these two research studies, the cardiovascular risks of cannabis use are becoming clearer and should be carefully considered and monitored by health care professionals and the public.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Regularly using marijuana can significantly increase a person’s risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke, according to a pair of new studies that will be presented at a major upcoming medical conference.

People who use marijuana daily have a 34% increased risk of heart failure, compared with people who don’t use the drug, according to one of the new studies.

The new findings leverage health data from 157,000 people in the National Institutes of Health “All of Us” research program. Researchers analyzed whether marijuana users were more likely to experience heart failure than nonusers over the course of nearly 4 years. The results indicated that coronary artery disease was behind marijuana users’ increased risk. (Coronary artery disease is the buildup of plaque on the walls of the arteries that supply blood to the heart.)

The research was conducted by a team at Medstar Health, a large Maryland health care system that operates 10 hospitals plus hundreds of clinics. The findings will be presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2023 in Philadelphia.

“Our results should encourage more researchers to study the use of marijuana to better understand its health implications, especially on cardiovascular risk,” said researcher Yakubu Bene-Alhasan, MD, MPH, a doctor at Medstar Health in Baltimore. “We want to provide the population with high-quality information on marijuana use and to help inform policy decisions at the state level, to educate patients, and to guide health care professionals.”

About one in five people in the United States use marijuana, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The majority of U.S. states allow marijuana to be used legally for medical purposes, and more than 20 states have legalized recreational marijuana, a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures shows. 

A second study that will be presented at the conference shows that older people with any combination of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol who use marijuana have an increased risk for a major heart or brain event, compared with people who never used the drug. 

The researchers analyzed data for more than 28,000 people age 65 and older who had health conditions that put them at risk for heart problems and whose medical records showed they were marijuana users but not tobacco users. The results showed at least a 20% increased risk of heart attack, stroke, cardiac arrest, or arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). 

The findings are significant because medical professionals have long said that research on the long-term health effects of using marijuana are limited. 

“The latest research about cannabis use indicates that smoking and inhaling cannabis increases concentrations of blood carboxyhemoglobin (carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas), tar (partly burned combustible matter) similar to the effects of inhaling a tobacco cigarette, both of which have been linked to heart muscle disease, chest pain, heart rhythm disturbances, heart attacks and other serious conditions,” said Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, chair of the volunteer writing group for the 2020 American Heart Association Scientific Statement: Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, in a statement. “Together with the results of these two research studies, the cardiovascular risks of cannabis use are becoming clearer and should be carefully considered and monitored by health care professionals and the public.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.