User login
FDA Okays Abuse-Deterrent Opioid for Severe Pain
Roxybond, an immediate-release (IR) formulation of oxycodone hydrochloride, is made with Protega’s SentryBond technology, which makes it harder for people to crush, inject, or snort, according to the company.
In a statement from Protega, Paul Howe, the company’s chief commercial officer, said the drug meets an “unmet need for an IR opioid with abuse-deterrent technology that may reduce misuse and abuse while providing pain relief to medically appropriate patients when used as indicated.”
To determine the tablet’s ability to withstand manipulation, more than 2000 in vitro tests were conducted, according to the release. The findings indicate Roxybond reduces — but does not entirely negate — the potential for intranasal and intravenous abuse.
Roxybond was previously approved in 5-, 15-, and 30-mg doses. The 10 mg option provides clinicians with the ability to better modify side effects, manage titration, and provide precision care for patients on opioid therapy, according to Protega.
“For patients, the range of doses can provide better pain control, reduce the risk of side effects, and provide a smoother transition during dosing transitions,” the company stated.
Roxybond is contraindicated in patients with significant respiratory depression, acute or severe bronchial asthma, gastrointestinal obstruction, or hypersensitivity to oxycodone. The drug is not intended for long-term use unless otherwise determined by a clinician. Roxybond also is subject to the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for opioids.
“The development of Roxybond with SentryBond is a step forward in fighting the national epidemic of prescription opioid overdose,” said Eric Kinzler, PhD, vice president of medical and regulatory affairs for Protega, in a release. “Protega is dedicated to our mission to block the path to abuse and work with healthcare professionals across the continuum of care to reduce misuse and abuse.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Roxybond, an immediate-release (IR) formulation of oxycodone hydrochloride, is made with Protega’s SentryBond technology, which makes it harder for people to crush, inject, or snort, according to the company.
In a statement from Protega, Paul Howe, the company’s chief commercial officer, said the drug meets an “unmet need for an IR opioid with abuse-deterrent technology that may reduce misuse and abuse while providing pain relief to medically appropriate patients when used as indicated.”
To determine the tablet’s ability to withstand manipulation, more than 2000 in vitro tests were conducted, according to the release. The findings indicate Roxybond reduces — but does not entirely negate — the potential for intranasal and intravenous abuse.
Roxybond was previously approved in 5-, 15-, and 30-mg doses. The 10 mg option provides clinicians with the ability to better modify side effects, manage titration, and provide precision care for patients on opioid therapy, according to Protega.
“For patients, the range of doses can provide better pain control, reduce the risk of side effects, and provide a smoother transition during dosing transitions,” the company stated.
Roxybond is contraindicated in patients with significant respiratory depression, acute or severe bronchial asthma, gastrointestinal obstruction, or hypersensitivity to oxycodone. The drug is not intended for long-term use unless otherwise determined by a clinician. Roxybond also is subject to the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for opioids.
“The development of Roxybond with SentryBond is a step forward in fighting the national epidemic of prescription opioid overdose,” said Eric Kinzler, PhD, vice president of medical and regulatory affairs for Protega, in a release. “Protega is dedicated to our mission to block the path to abuse and work with healthcare professionals across the continuum of care to reduce misuse and abuse.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Roxybond, an immediate-release (IR) formulation of oxycodone hydrochloride, is made with Protega’s SentryBond technology, which makes it harder for people to crush, inject, or snort, according to the company.
In a statement from Protega, Paul Howe, the company’s chief commercial officer, said the drug meets an “unmet need for an IR opioid with abuse-deterrent technology that may reduce misuse and abuse while providing pain relief to medically appropriate patients when used as indicated.”
To determine the tablet’s ability to withstand manipulation, more than 2000 in vitro tests were conducted, according to the release. The findings indicate Roxybond reduces — but does not entirely negate — the potential for intranasal and intravenous abuse.
Roxybond was previously approved in 5-, 15-, and 30-mg doses. The 10 mg option provides clinicians with the ability to better modify side effects, manage titration, and provide precision care for patients on opioid therapy, according to Protega.
“For patients, the range of doses can provide better pain control, reduce the risk of side effects, and provide a smoother transition during dosing transitions,” the company stated.
Roxybond is contraindicated in patients with significant respiratory depression, acute or severe bronchial asthma, gastrointestinal obstruction, or hypersensitivity to oxycodone. The drug is not intended for long-term use unless otherwise determined by a clinician. Roxybond also is subject to the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies for opioids.
“The development of Roxybond with SentryBond is a step forward in fighting the national epidemic of prescription opioid overdose,” said Eric Kinzler, PhD, vice president of medical and regulatory affairs for Protega, in a release. “Protega is dedicated to our mission to block the path to abuse and work with healthcare professionals across the continuum of care to reduce misuse and abuse.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Total Hip Replacement Superior to Exercise Therapy for Improving Hip Osteoarthritis Pain and Function
For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.
In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.
Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.
“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”
The PROHIP Study
THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived.
The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training.
Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.
However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged.
Design and Study Population
The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points.
After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years.
The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group.
Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization.
The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction.
‘Reassuring’ Results
In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”
THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.
In the THR arm, there was one case of prosthetic joint infection, one hip dislocation, two revision surgeries, one instance of foot drop, and one case of gastroesophageal reflux. Meanwhile, in the resistance training group, there was one hip dislocation, one pelvic fracture, one case of atrial fibrillation, and one urinary tract and renal infection.
Overall, any serious adverse event was reported in six (12%) of 48 patients in the THR arm vs five (9%) of 55 participants in the resistance training group, of which only one, occurring in the resistance training group, resulted in discontinuation of the program.
Resistance Training Role
A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.
This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy.
It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.
Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
Authors’ View
The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”
Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors.
Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.
“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said.
“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.
The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.
In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.
Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.
“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”
The PROHIP Study
THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived.
The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training.
Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.
However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged.
Design and Study Population
The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points.
After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years.
The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group.
Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization.
The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction.
‘Reassuring’ Results
In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”
THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.
In the THR arm, there was one case of prosthetic joint infection, one hip dislocation, two revision surgeries, one instance of foot drop, and one case of gastroesophageal reflux. Meanwhile, in the resistance training group, there was one hip dislocation, one pelvic fracture, one case of atrial fibrillation, and one urinary tract and renal infection.
Overall, any serious adverse event was reported in six (12%) of 48 patients in the THR arm vs five (9%) of 55 participants in the resistance training group, of which only one, occurring in the resistance training group, resulted in discontinuation of the program.
Resistance Training Role
A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.
This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy.
It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.
Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
Authors’ View
The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”
Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors.
Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.
“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said.
“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.
The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For people with severe symptomatic hip osteoarthritis, total hip replacement (THR) alleviates hip pain and improves function much more effectively than a resistance training program supervised by a physiotherapist, according to the results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.
In the PROHIP study, the mean increases in Oxford Hip Scores from baseline to 6 months were 15.9 points for THR and 4.5 points for resistance training. The 11.4-point difference in scores was both statistically and clinically significant, the study’s investigators reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“Our results are clear: Surgery is superior to exercise in patients who have hip osteoarthritis and indication for surgery, and now we have finally proven that with the highest level of evidence,” corresponding author Thomas Frydendal, PT, PhD, MSc, told this news organization.
Frydendal, who was involved in the study while working on his PhD at University Hospital of Southern Denmark – Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark, the primary center for the trial, is now a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, and Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital.
“We believe that our findings are pretty robust,” Frydendal added. “I think if someone in the world conducts a trial similar to ours, they will find fairly close or consistent findings, no matter what type of exercise they choose.”
The PROHIP Study
THR is routinely recommended for the management of severe hip osteoarthritis, but since there are no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of this procedure as compared with first-line treatment such as resistance training, the PROHIP study was conceived.
The trial was conducted at four Danish orthopedic centers and designed as a superiority study, the hypothesis being that THR would be better at alleviating self-reported hip pain and improving hip function than resistance training.
Of a possible 1474 individuals with a clinical suspicion of hip osteoarthritis, 791 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the trial. Inclusion criteria were being aged 50 years or older and having an indication for THR based on the presence of hip pain and clinical and radiographic findings.
However, the majority (86%) declined to enter the study, with almost half (43%) deciding to have a THR and enroll in a parallel observational cohort. This meant that only 110 (14%) individuals agreed to participate and underwent randomization, which does limit the study’s generalizability, the PROHIP investigators acknowledged.
Design and Study Population
The change in Oxford Hip Score from baseline to 6 months was selected as the primary outcome measure based on the findings of a prior qualitative study. This 12-item, patient-reported outcome measure gives a score ranging from 0 to 48, with higher scores indicating less hip pain and better hip function. The estimated minimal clinically important difference is a change of 5 points.
After a baseline assessment, 53 of 109 individuals were randomly assigned to undergo THR and 56 to participate in the resistance training program. Overall, the mean age of participants was 67.6 years, and half were women. The average duration of hip pain was a median of 1.7 years.
The median time to receipt of the allocated treatment was 2.8 months in the THR group and 0.5 months in the resistance training group.
Those allocated to the THR group also underwent a “fast track” program that involved patient education, pain management, and early mobilization.
The resistance training group received 12 weeks of exercise supervised by a physiotherapist and then offered 12 weeks of additional exercise conducted on their own. The physiotherapist-supervised exercise sessions were held twice weekly and lasted for 1 hour. These started with a 10-minute warm-up on a stationary bike, followed by a standard set of resistance-based exercises that included a leg press, hip extension, hip flexion, and hip abduction.
‘Reassuring’ Results
In a comment, consultant orthopedic surgeon Antony Palmer, MA, BMBCh, DPhil, said: “It’s reassuring that patients with advanced symptomatic osteoarthritis do well with hip replacements.”
THR does of course come with the potential risk for complications, but “the rate of these is what you’d expect for that procedure,” Palmer said, who works for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and is a senior clinical research fellow at Oxford University in England.
In the THR arm, there was one case of prosthetic joint infection, one hip dislocation, two revision surgeries, one instance of foot drop, and one case of gastroesophageal reflux. Meanwhile, in the resistance training group, there was one hip dislocation, one pelvic fracture, one case of atrial fibrillation, and one urinary tract and renal infection.
Overall, any serious adverse event was reported in six (12%) of 48 patients in the THR arm vs five (9%) of 55 participants in the resistance training group, of which only one, occurring in the resistance training group, resulted in discontinuation of the program.
Resistance Training Role
A notable finding was that, at 6 months, five (9%) people assigned to the THR arm had not undergone surgery, and 12 (21%) people in the resistance training group had undergone a THR.
This could suggest two things, Palmer suggested in the interview. The first is that there could be a small proportion of people assigned to THR who may not need the operation and do well with exercise therapy. And, conversely, there may be those who would do well having the surgery without first going through the intermediate stage of physical therapy.
It’s a suggestion that “maybe we’ve got to refine that a bit better and identify the patients that really do benefit from physiotherapy and who might not need hip replacement as a result,” Palmer said.
Or in other words, “should all patients undergo a program of physiotherapy before considering surgery?” he added.
Authors’ View
The PROHIP investigators conclude: “These results support current recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis and may be used to inform and guide shared decision making in clinical practice.”
Moreover, the results “do not oppose the use of resistance training as initial treatment,” says the authors.
Frydendal highlighted in his interview that nearly three out of four of the patients reported not to have undertaken any type of supervised exercise before entry into the study, which is a first-line, guideline-recommended option.
“If a patient tells me, ‘I haven’t done any exercise previously,’ I’d recommend starting with completing a 6- to 12-week exercise program that is tailored to your individual needs and evaluate your symptoms afterward,” he said.
“But we should refer the patient if our first-line treatment does not offer any improvements in the patient’s symptoms, as surgery with total hip replacement is clearly a really good treatment option,” Frydendal said.
The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association, among other independent bodies. Frydendal and Palmer reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Low-Volume Bowel Prep Easier, as Effective as Standard Prep in Hospitalized Patients
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.
“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.
“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.
In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.
After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.
In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.
Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.
Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.
In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
Ease of Use Is a Plus
On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”
In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).
“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”
Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.
“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”
The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.
“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.
“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.
In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.
After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.
In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.
Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.
Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.
In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
Ease of Use Is a Plus
On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”
In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).
“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”
Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.
“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”
The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG).
Patients who received MoviPrep (2L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid) reported higher tolerability and willingness to repeat colonoscopy preparation in the future than those taking GoLYTELY (4L of polyethylene glycol and electrolytes). In addition, the rates of electrolyte abnormalities and acute kidney injury were low and similar between the two groups.
“Bowel preparation remains a challenge in the inpatient setting, where 20%-50% of all colonoscopies can have inadequate bowel preparation,” said lead author Karen Xiao, MD, assistant professor in the section of digestive diseases at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Previous studies have indicated that low-volume (2L), split-dose preparations are noninferior to high-volume (4L), split-dose regimens, and patients generally prefer low-volume options, she said. However, the current standard of care for inpatients continues to include high-volume polyethylene glycol electrocyte lavage, which may be less tolerable.
“Similar to prior studies, our study supports that MoviPrep may be a suitable alternative to traditional high-volume bowel preparation in hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy,” she said.
In a single-blind, multi-site, randomized controlled trial, Xiao and colleagues in the Yale–New Haven Health System randomly assigned inpatients undergoing colonoscopy to MoviPrep or GoLYTELY between January 2022 and July 2024. They excluded patients with prior small or large bowel resection, foreign body removal, or medical contraindications, such as obstruction, pregnancy, phenylketonuria, or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency.
After bowel prep but before colonoscopy, patients took the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey. Colonoscopies were then recorded, and videos were scored by a single-blinded central reviewer. The primary outcome included the adequacy of bowel prep as defined by a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score of 6 or higher, with each segment scoring 2 or higher.
In the final analysis, 202 patients received MoviPrep and 210 received GoLYTELY. In both groups, the average age was 62; about 60% were men; and 66% were White, about 22% Black, and 13%-15% Hispanic. About 65% of patients in both arms had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3, with another 20% in each group having an ASA score of 4, “reflective of a sicker inpatient population,” Xiao said.
Inpatient colonoscopy was indicated for gastrointestinal bleeding (55%), diarrhea (15%-20%), abnormal imaging (10%-13%), inflammatory bowel disease (4%), or other (35%-41%). Patients could have more than one indication for colonoscopy.
Overall, bowel preparation was scored as adequate in 111 patients with MoviPrep (55%) and 111 patients with GoLYTELY (52.9%), and was inadequate in 91 patients with MoviPrep (45%) and 99 patients with GoLYTELY (47.1%). With a rate difference of 2.1% and a P value of .007, MoviPrep was considered noninferior to GoLYTELY for adequate bowel preparation.
In terms of secondary outcomes, there wasn’t a significant difference in the length of hospital stay, with a median stay of 6 days. Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of adverse events, including acute kidney injury and electrolyte abnormalities, with rates ranging from 1% to 9%. MoviPrep patients were slightly more likely to need additional bowel prep but also had a slightly shorter time to colonoscopy.
Ease of Use Is a Plus
On the basis of the Mayo Clinic Bowel Preparation survey, there wasn’t a difference between the groups in how much bowel prep solution was left in the bottle. However, more than twice as many patients who took MoviPrep said the prep was “easy,” and more MoviPrep patients called it “acceptable,” whereas more GoLYTELY patients said prep was “somewhat difficult” or “very difficult.”
In addition, significantly more MoviPrep patients (49.7% vs 33.7%) said they were “mostly willing” to drink the same prep again if they needed another colonoscopy in the future, while more GoLYTELY patients said they were “somewhat willing” (44.7% vs 34.6%) or “not willing at all” (21.6% vs 15.7%).
“Bowel prep, particularly in hospitals, is important because we do it so often. When you think about what our patients in the hospital are going through, they’re very sick and often have multiple comorbidities, so how can we give them a bowel prep that is safe for them, easiest for them, easy for our nursing staff who are experiencing shortages, and as good as the traditional bowel prep,” said the session’s moderator, Amy Oxentenko, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine and gastroenterologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
“Here we’ve seen great data that we can provide half the volume of the prep, still get amazing results in terms of adequacy of preparation, and the patients had a better experience,” said Oxentenko, the incoming ACG president. “That’s important because they likely may need another colonoscopy in the future, and we would hate for the bowel prep in the hospital to potentially dissuade them from a future colonoscopy.”
Future studies could stratify patients on the basis of colonoscopy indication or patient history, including conditions such as chronic constipation or neurogenic bowel, where some patients may still need a high-volume prep, Oxentenko said.
“Also, in the hospital setting, we don’t always know when a patient is going to the endoscopy suite due to other patient cases that may get prolonged or pushed in,” she said. “So how do you time the second dose of the split dose in anticipation of when that patient will go to the endoscopy suite to maintain that great preparation with a smaller volume prep?”
The study was awarded the ACG Governors Award for Excellence in Clinical Research (Trainee). Xiao and Oxentenko reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
Breath Gas Patterns Predict Response to Low FODMAP Diet
PHILADELPHIA — , according to a new study.
The low FODMAP diet is the most evidence-based dietary therapy for patients with IBS, but we know that “only about 50% of our patients respond to it,” said principal investigator Prashant Singh, MD, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “Exhaled breath gases represent bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrates. These measurements could provide a simple biomarker for response to low FODMAP diets.”
Even before starting the low FODMAP diet, “you could see notable differences in breath test patterns between responders and nonresponders,” he said. “We saw that low FODMAP responders had higher hydrogen (H2) and lower methane (CH4) at baseline than nonresponders and had a greater drop in hydrogen following FODMAP restriction vs nonresponders.”
He added that these results imply that responders to this diet may exhibit differences in baseline microbiota composition regarding saccharolytic capacity and/or methanogens.
Singh presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Breaths That Can Predict Response
To determine if pre-intervention non-fasting breath patterns are associated with a clinical response to low FODMAP diets, Singh and colleagues enrolled 284 self-selected participants (mean age, 45.2 years) with mild to moderate gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Participants used an app-connected breath analyzer to record hourly, non-fasting H2 and CH4 levels during waking hours, in addition to logging meal content and symptom severity (bloating, abdominal pain, and flatulence) on a 0-10 scale.
Patients were directed to consume their habitual diet for 1 week, before following an app-directed low FODMAP diet for 1 week. Responders were defined as those with a ≥ 30% reduction in at least one mean symptom score. The researchers then compared average hourly H2 and CH4 levels and symptom scores at baseline between low FODMAP diet responders and nonresponders.
Of the participants, 111 were classified as responders and 173 as nonresponders. There were no significant differences between the groups in gender, age, body mass index, or FODMAP per calorie.
Following FODMAP restriction, responders had consistently lower abdominal pain throughout the day and lower bloating and flatulence predominantly in the latter part of the day. Nonresponders experienced no significant changes in key abdominal symptoms after adopting the low FODMAP diet.
The researchers found that breath tests taken at baseline revealed predictive trends between the groups, even though average FODMAP consumption did not significantly differ between them. Baseline H2 levels were higher among responders than among nonresponders, especially in the morning and evening. However, responders had lower baseline CH4 levels throughout the day.
Following FODMAP restrictions, responders had a significant drop in non-fasting H2 but not CH4, whereas nonresponders did not have a significant drop in either.
The study was limited by the fact that participants were not clinically diagnosed with IBS, their GI symptoms were mild overall, and no data were available on stool consistency/frequency or fecal microbiome composition for correlation with exhaled breath gas levels.
A Potential New Biomarker
Session co-moderator Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that if validated, these findings provide hope for better directing low FODMAP diets to those patients who may benefit.
There are some patients who may or may not respond to a FODMAP diet, for reasons we don’t yet know, possibly related to fermentation of gas, and it’s helpful to know before starting treatment, he said. It may help us with more of “a precision medicine approach before we really torture people with diets that can be very difficult to adhere to.”
Staller, who was not involved in the study, added that, “People tend to really focus on small intestinal bacteria overgrowth when it comes to hydrogen and methane production, but in reality, this is really a very agile day-to-day, meal-to-meal responsiveness.
“It’s a different paradigm,” he continued. “I’d also like to see more data as to why we see the diurnal rhythm” and whether potential factors such as intestinal transit times are playing a role.
Singh reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Staller reported receiving research support from Ardelyx and Restasis and serving as a consultant to Anji, Ardelyx, GI Supply, Mahana, Restasis, and Sanofi. Funding associated with the study was not available at the time of publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — , according to a new study.
The low FODMAP diet is the most evidence-based dietary therapy for patients with IBS, but we know that “only about 50% of our patients respond to it,” said principal investigator Prashant Singh, MD, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “Exhaled breath gases represent bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrates. These measurements could provide a simple biomarker for response to low FODMAP diets.”
Even before starting the low FODMAP diet, “you could see notable differences in breath test patterns between responders and nonresponders,” he said. “We saw that low FODMAP responders had higher hydrogen (H2) and lower methane (CH4) at baseline than nonresponders and had a greater drop in hydrogen following FODMAP restriction vs nonresponders.”
He added that these results imply that responders to this diet may exhibit differences in baseline microbiota composition regarding saccharolytic capacity and/or methanogens.
Singh presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Breaths That Can Predict Response
To determine if pre-intervention non-fasting breath patterns are associated with a clinical response to low FODMAP diets, Singh and colleagues enrolled 284 self-selected participants (mean age, 45.2 years) with mild to moderate gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Participants used an app-connected breath analyzer to record hourly, non-fasting H2 and CH4 levels during waking hours, in addition to logging meal content and symptom severity (bloating, abdominal pain, and flatulence) on a 0-10 scale.
Patients were directed to consume their habitual diet for 1 week, before following an app-directed low FODMAP diet for 1 week. Responders were defined as those with a ≥ 30% reduction in at least one mean symptom score. The researchers then compared average hourly H2 and CH4 levels and symptom scores at baseline between low FODMAP diet responders and nonresponders.
Of the participants, 111 were classified as responders and 173 as nonresponders. There were no significant differences between the groups in gender, age, body mass index, or FODMAP per calorie.
Following FODMAP restriction, responders had consistently lower abdominal pain throughout the day and lower bloating and flatulence predominantly in the latter part of the day. Nonresponders experienced no significant changes in key abdominal symptoms after adopting the low FODMAP diet.
The researchers found that breath tests taken at baseline revealed predictive trends between the groups, even though average FODMAP consumption did not significantly differ between them. Baseline H2 levels were higher among responders than among nonresponders, especially in the morning and evening. However, responders had lower baseline CH4 levels throughout the day.
Following FODMAP restrictions, responders had a significant drop in non-fasting H2 but not CH4, whereas nonresponders did not have a significant drop in either.
The study was limited by the fact that participants were not clinically diagnosed with IBS, their GI symptoms were mild overall, and no data were available on stool consistency/frequency or fecal microbiome composition for correlation with exhaled breath gas levels.
A Potential New Biomarker
Session co-moderator Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that if validated, these findings provide hope for better directing low FODMAP diets to those patients who may benefit.
There are some patients who may or may not respond to a FODMAP diet, for reasons we don’t yet know, possibly related to fermentation of gas, and it’s helpful to know before starting treatment, he said. It may help us with more of “a precision medicine approach before we really torture people with diets that can be very difficult to adhere to.”
Staller, who was not involved in the study, added that, “People tend to really focus on small intestinal bacteria overgrowth when it comes to hydrogen and methane production, but in reality, this is really a very agile day-to-day, meal-to-meal responsiveness.
“It’s a different paradigm,” he continued. “I’d also like to see more data as to why we see the diurnal rhythm” and whether potential factors such as intestinal transit times are playing a role.
Singh reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Staller reported receiving research support from Ardelyx and Restasis and serving as a consultant to Anji, Ardelyx, GI Supply, Mahana, Restasis, and Sanofi. Funding associated with the study was not available at the time of publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — , according to a new study.
The low FODMAP diet is the most evidence-based dietary therapy for patients with IBS, but we know that “only about 50% of our patients respond to it,” said principal investigator Prashant Singh, MD, assistant professor at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “Exhaled breath gases represent bacterial fermentation of dietary carbohydrates. These measurements could provide a simple biomarker for response to low FODMAP diets.”
Even before starting the low FODMAP diet, “you could see notable differences in breath test patterns between responders and nonresponders,” he said. “We saw that low FODMAP responders had higher hydrogen (H2) and lower methane (CH4) at baseline than nonresponders and had a greater drop in hydrogen following FODMAP restriction vs nonresponders.”
He added that these results imply that responders to this diet may exhibit differences in baseline microbiota composition regarding saccharolytic capacity and/or methanogens.
Singh presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting.
Breaths That Can Predict Response
To determine if pre-intervention non-fasting breath patterns are associated with a clinical response to low FODMAP diets, Singh and colleagues enrolled 284 self-selected participants (mean age, 45.2 years) with mild to moderate gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Participants used an app-connected breath analyzer to record hourly, non-fasting H2 and CH4 levels during waking hours, in addition to logging meal content and symptom severity (bloating, abdominal pain, and flatulence) on a 0-10 scale.
Patients were directed to consume their habitual diet for 1 week, before following an app-directed low FODMAP diet for 1 week. Responders were defined as those with a ≥ 30% reduction in at least one mean symptom score. The researchers then compared average hourly H2 and CH4 levels and symptom scores at baseline between low FODMAP diet responders and nonresponders.
Of the participants, 111 were classified as responders and 173 as nonresponders. There were no significant differences between the groups in gender, age, body mass index, or FODMAP per calorie.
Following FODMAP restriction, responders had consistently lower abdominal pain throughout the day and lower bloating and flatulence predominantly in the latter part of the day. Nonresponders experienced no significant changes in key abdominal symptoms after adopting the low FODMAP diet.
The researchers found that breath tests taken at baseline revealed predictive trends between the groups, even though average FODMAP consumption did not significantly differ between them. Baseline H2 levels were higher among responders than among nonresponders, especially in the morning and evening. However, responders had lower baseline CH4 levels throughout the day.
Following FODMAP restrictions, responders had a significant drop in non-fasting H2 but not CH4, whereas nonresponders did not have a significant drop in either.
The study was limited by the fact that participants were not clinically diagnosed with IBS, their GI symptoms were mild overall, and no data were available on stool consistency/frequency or fecal microbiome composition for correlation with exhaled breath gas levels.
A Potential New Biomarker
Session co-moderator Kyle Staller, MD, MPH, director of the Gastrointestinal Motility Laboratory at Mass General and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, said in an interview that if validated, these findings provide hope for better directing low FODMAP diets to those patients who may benefit.
There are some patients who may or may not respond to a FODMAP diet, for reasons we don’t yet know, possibly related to fermentation of gas, and it’s helpful to know before starting treatment, he said. It may help us with more of “a precision medicine approach before we really torture people with diets that can be very difficult to adhere to.”
Staller, who was not involved in the study, added that, “People tend to really focus on small intestinal bacteria overgrowth when it comes to hydrogen and methane production, but in reality, this is really a very agile day-to-day, meal-to-meal responsiveness.
“It’s a different paradigm,” he continued. “I’d also like to see more data as to why we see the diurnal rhythm” and whether potential factors such as intestinal transit times are playing a role.
Singh reported receiving royalties from UpToDate. Staller reported receiving research support from Ardelyx and Restasis and serving as a consultant to Anji, Ardelyx, GI Supply, Mahana, Restasis, and Sanofi. Funding associated with the study was not available at the time of publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
GLP-1 RAs Reduce Early-Onset CRC Risk in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes
PHILADELPHIA — according to the results of a retrospective study.
“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.
The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.
Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.
The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Retrospective Database Analysis
Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.
They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.
Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).
Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
A Proposed Protective Effect
Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.
“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”
This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”
These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.
“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”
Hypothesis-Generating Results
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research.
"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News.
She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D.
Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said.
“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained.
Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention."
The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — according to the results of a retrospective study.
“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.
The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.
Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.
The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Retrospective Database Analysis
Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.
They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.
Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).
Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
A Proposed Protective Effect
Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.
“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”
This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”
These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.
“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”
Hypothesis-Generating Results
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research.
"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News.
She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D.
Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said.
“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained.
Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention."
The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA — according to the results of a retrospective study.
“This is the first large study to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RA use on EO-CRC risk,” principal investigator Temitope Olasehinde, MD, resident physician at the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, said in an interview.
The results indicate the GLP-1 RAs have a potentially protective role to play in combating EO-CRC, the incidence of which is notably rising in younger adults, with a corresponding increase in associated mortality.
Previous studies investigating the link between GLP-1 RAs and CRC did not capture patients aged younger than 50 years; thus, it was unknown if these results could be extrapolated to a younger age group, said Olasehinde.
The researcher presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Retrospective Database Analysis
Olasehinde and colleagues analyzed data from TriNetX, a large federated deidentified health research network, to identify patients (age ≤ 49 years) with diagnosed T2D subsequently prescribed antidiabetic medications who had not received a prior diagnosis of CRC. Additionally, patients were stratified on the basis of first-time GLP-1 RA use.
They identified 2,025,034 drug-naive patients with T2D; of these, 284,685 were subsequently prescribed GLP-1 RAs, and 1,740,349 remained in the non–GLP-1 RA cohort. Following propensity score matching, there were 86,186 patients in each cohort.
Patients who received GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than those who received non–GLP-1 RAs (0.6% vs 0.9%; P < .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-068).
Furthermore, a sub-analysis revealed that patients who were obese and taking GLP-1 RAs had significantly lower odds of developing EO-CRC than patients who were obese but not taking GLP-1 RAs (0.7% vs 1.1%; P < .001; OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-067).
A Proposed Protective Effect
Although GLP-1 RAs are indicated for the treatment of T2D and obesity, recent evidence suggests that they may play a role in reducing the risk for CRC as well. This protective effect may be produced not only by addressing T2D and obesity — both important risk factors for CRC — but also via cellular mechanisms, Olasehinde noted.
“GLP-1 receptors are widely expressed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, with various effects on tissues in the stomach, small intestine, and colon,” she explained. Specifically, activation of these receptors in the proximal and distal colon promotes the release of “important factors that protect and facilitate healing of the intestinal epithelium” and “regulate the gut microbiome.”
This is particularly relevant in EO-CRC, she added, given its greater association with T2D and obesity, both factors that “have been shown to create dysbiosis in the gut microbiome and low-grade inflammation via release of free radicals/inflammatory cytokines.”
These results provide more evidence that EO-CRC “is clinically and molecularly distinct from late-onset colorectal cancer,” which is important for both clinicians and patients to understand, said Olasehinde.
“It is imperative that we are all aware of the specific signs and symptoms this population presents with and the implications of this diagnosis in younger age groups,” she added. “Patients should continue making informed dietary and lifestyle modifications/choices to help reduce the burden of EO-CRC.”
Hypothesis-Generating Results
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, who was not affiliated with the research, called the results promising but — at this stage — primarily useful for stimulating future research.
"We do need more studies such as this to generate hypotheses that can be studied prospectively," Shaukat, professor of medicine and population health, and director of GI Outcomes Research at NYU Langone Health in New York City, told Medscape Medical News.
She referred to another study, published in JAMA Oncology, that also used the TriNetX research network, which showed that GLP-1 RAs were associated with reduced CRC risk in drug-naive patients with T2D.
Shaukat also noted that the current analysis has limitations that should be considered. "The study is retrospective, and confounding is a possibility,” she said.
“How the groups that did and did not receive GLP-1 RAs differ in other risk factors that could be the drivers of the cancers is not known. Whether cancers were detected through screening or symptoms, stage, and other features that may differ are not known. Finally, since we don’t know who did or did not have colonoscopy, undiagnosed cancers are not known," she explained.
Shaukat, who was the lead author of the ACG 2021 Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines, added that the field would benefit from studies providing "biological plausibility information, such as animal studies to understand how GLP-1 RAs may modulate risk of colon cancer; other population-based cohort studies on the incidence of colon cancer among GLP-1 RA users and non-users; and prospective trials on chemoprevention."
The study had no specific funding. Olasehinde reported no relevant financial relationships. Shaukat reported serving as a consultant for Freenome, Medtronic, and Motus GI, as well as an advisory board member for Iterative Scopes Inc.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
AI Tool Helps Detect, Differentiate Pancreatic Lesions During Endoscopic Ultrasound
PHILADELPHIA —
This was a transatlantic collaborative effort involving researchers in Portugal, Spain, the United States, and Brazil, and the AI tool “works on different platforms and different devices,” Miguel Mascarenhas, MD, PhD, with Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Mascarenhas noted that pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding during imaging and are differentiated by whether they’re mucinous PCLs (M-PCLs) or non-mucinous PCLs (NM-PCLs). The malignancy risk is almost exclusive of PCL with a mucinous phenotype.
Pancreatic solid lesions are also prevalent, and differentiation is challenging. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P-DAC) is the most common pancreatic solid lesion and has a poor prognosis because of late-stage disease at diagnosis. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are less common but have malignant potential.
EUS is the “gold standard” for pancreatic lesion evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy is suboptimal, particularly for lesions < 10 mm, Mascarenhas noted.
With an eye toward improving diagnostic accuracy, he and colleagues developed a convolutional neural network for detecting and differentiating cystic (M-PCL and NM-PCL) and solid (P-DAC and P-NET) pancreatic lesions.
They leveraged data from 378 EUS exams with 126,000 still images — 19,528 M-PCL, 8175 NM-PCL, 64,286 P-DAC, 29,153 P-NET, and 4858 normal pancreas images.
The AI tool demonstrated 99.1% accuracy for identifying normal pancreatic tissue, and it showed 99% and 99.8% accuracy for M-PCL and NM-PCL, respectively.
For pancreatic solid lesions, P-DAC and P-NET were distinguished with 94% accuracy, with 98.7% and 83.6% sensitivity for P-DAC and P-NET, respectively.
Real-Time Validation Next
“AI is delivering promising results throughout medicine, but particularly in gastroenterology, which is one of the most fertile areas of AI research. This comes mostly from the deployment of deep-learning models, most of them convolutional neural networks, which are highly efficient for image analysis,” Mascarenhas told attendees.
This is the “first worldwide convolutional neural network” capable of detecting and differentiating both cystic and solid pancreatic lesions. The use of a large dataset from four centers in two continents helps minimize the impact of demographic bias, Mascarenhas added.
The study is based on still images, not full videos, he noted. As a next step, the team is conducting a multicenter study focused on real-time clinical validation of the model during EUS procedures.
“AI has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound. We’re just on the tip of the iceberg. There is enormous potential to harness AI, and we welcome all the groups that might want to join our research,” Mascarenhas said.
Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved in the study, is optimistic about emerging applications for AI.
“AI holds incredible promise in gastroenterology, especially for diagnosing complex pancreatic lesions where early, accurate differentiation can be lifesaving,” Spiegel said in an interview.
“This study’s high accuracy across diverse datasets is encouraging; however, as a retrospective analysis, it leaves the real-time clinical impact still to be proven. Prospective studies will be essential to confirm AI’s role in enhancing our diagnostic capabilities,” Spiegel cautioned.
“More generally, AI is rapidly transforming gastroenterology by enhancing our ability to detect, differentiate, and monitor conditions with unprecedented precision. From improving early cancer detection to guiding complex diagnostic procedures, AI stands to become an invaluable tool that complements clinical expertise. As we refine these technologies, the potential for AI to elevate both diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in GI is truly remarkable,” Spiegel said.
The study had no specific funding. Mascarenhas and Spiegel have declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA —
This was a transatlantic collaborative effort involving researchers in Portugal, Spain, the United States, and Brazil, and the AI tool “works on different platforms and different devices,” Miguel Mascarenhas, MD, PhD, with Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Mascarenhas noted that pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding during imaging and are differentiated by whether they’re mucinous PCLs (M-PCLs) or non-mucinous PCLs (NM-PCLs). The malignancy risk is almost exclusive of PCL with a mucinous phenotype.
Pancreatic solid lesions are also prevalent, and differentiation is challenging. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P-DAC) is the most common pancreatic solid lesion and has a poor prognosis because of late-stage disease at diagnosis. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are less common but have malignant potential.
EUS is the “gold standard” for pancreatic lesion evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy is suboptimal, particularly for lesions < 10 mm, Mascarenhas noted.
With an eye toward improving diagnostic accuracy, he and colleagues developed a convolutional neural network for detecting and differentiating cystic (M-PCL and NM-PCL) and solid (P-DAC and P-NET) pancreatic lesions.
They leveraged data from 378 EUS exams with 126,000 still images — 19,528 M-PCL, 8175 NM-PCL, 64,286 P-DAC, 29,153 P-NET, and 4858 normal pancreas images.
The AI tool demonstrated 99.1% accuracy for identifying normal pancreatic tissue, and it showed 99% and 99.8% accuracy for M-PCL and NM-PCL, respectively.
For pancreatic solid lesions, P-DAC and P-NET were distinguished with 94% accuracy, with 98.7% and 83.6% sensitivity for P-DAC and P-NET, respectively.
Real-Time Validation Next
“AI is delivering promising results throughout medicine, but particularly in gastroenterology, which is one of the most fertile areas of AI research. This comes mostly from the deployment of deep-learning models, most of them convolutional neural networks, which are highly efficient for image analysis,” Mascarenhas told attendees.
This is the “first worldwide convolutional neural network” capable of detecting and differentiating both cystic and solid pancreatic lesions. The use of a large dataset from four centers in two continents helps minimize the impact of demographic bias, Mascarenhas added.
The study is based on still images, not full videos, he noted. As a next step, the team is conducting a multicenter study focused on real-time clinical validation of the model during EUS procedures.
“AI has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound. We’re just on the tip of the iceberg. There is enormous potential to harness AI, and we welcome all the groups that might want to join our research,” Mascarenhas said.
Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved in the study, is optimistic about emerging applications for AI.
“AI holds incredible promise in gastroenterology, especially for diagnosing complex pancreatic lesions where early, accurate differentiation can be lifesaving,” Spiegel said in an interview.
“This study’s high accuracy across diverse datasets is encouraging; however, as a retrospective analysis, it leaves the real-time clinical impact still to be proven. Prospective studies will be essential to confirm AI’s role in enhancing our diagnostic capabilities,” Spiegel cautioned.
“More generally, AI is rapidly transforming gastroenterology by enhancing our ability to detect, differentiate, and monitor conditions with unprecedented precision. From improving early cancer detection to guiding complex diagnostic procedures, AI stands to become an invaluable tool that complements clinical expertise. As we refine these technologies, the potential for AI to elevate both diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in GI is truly remarkable,” Spiegel said.
The study had no specific funding. Mascarenhas and Spiegel have declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA —
This was a transatlantic collaborative effort involving researchers in Portugal, Spain, the United States, and Brazil, and the AI tool “works on different platforms and different devices,” Miguel Mascarenhas, MD, PhD, with Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Mascarenhas noted that pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding during imaging and are differentiated by whether they’re mucinous PCLs (M-PCLs) or non-mucinous PCLs (NM-PCLs). The malignancy risk is almost exclusive of PCL with a mucinous phenotype.
Pancreatic solid lesions are also prevalent, and differentiation is challenging. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P-DAC) is the most common pancreatic solid lesion and has a poor prognosis because of late-stage disease at diagnosis. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are less common but have malignant potential.
EUS is the “gold standard” for pancreatic lesion evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy is suboptimal, particularly for lesions < 10 mm, Mascarenhas noted.
With an eye toward improving diagnostic accuracy, he and colleagues developed a convolutional neural network for detecting and differentiating cystic (M-PCL and NM-PCL) and solid (P-DAC and P-NET) pancreatic lesions.
They leveraged data from 378 EUS exams with 126,000 still images — 19,528 M-PCL, 8175 NM-PCL, 64,286 P-DAC, 29,153 P-NET, and 4858 normal pancreas images.
The AI tool demonstrated 99.1% accuracy for identifying normal pancreatic tissue, and it showed 99% and 99.8% accuracy for M-PCL and NM-PCL, respectively.
For pancreatic solid lesions, P-DAC and P-NET were distinguished with 94% accuracy, with 98.7% and 83.6% sensitivity for P-DAC and P-NET, respectively.
Real-Time Validation Next
“AI is delivering promising results throughout medicine, but particularly in gastroenterology, which is one of the most fertile areas of AI research. This comes mostly from the deployment of deep-learning models, most of them convolutional neural networks, which are highly efficient for image analysis,” Mascarenhas told attendees.
This is the “first worldwide convolutional neural network” capable of detecting and differentiating both cystic and solid pancreatic lesions. The use of a large dataset from four centers in two continents helps minimize the impact of demographic bias, Mascarenhas added.
The study is based on still images, not full videos, he noted. As a next step, the team is conducting a multicenter study focused on real-time clinical validation of the model during EUS procedures.
“AI has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound. We’re just on the tip of the iceberg. There is enormous potential to harness AI, and we welcome all the groups that might want to join our research,” Mascarenhas said.
Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved in the study, is optimistic about emerging applications for AI.
“AI holds incredible promise in gastroenterology, especially for diagnosing complex pancreatic lesions where early, accurate differentiation can be lifesaving,” Spiegel said in an interview.
“This study’s high accuracy across diverse datasets is encouraging; however, as a retrospective analysis, it leaves the real-time clinical impact still to be proven. Prospective studies will be essential to confirm AI’s role in enhancing our diagnostic capabilities,” Spiegel cautioned.
“More generally, AI is rapidly transforming gastroenterology by enhancing our ability to detect, differentiate, and monitor conditions with unprecedented precision. From improving early cancer detection to guiding complex diagnostic procedures, AI stands to become an invaluable tool that complements clinical expertise. As we refine these technologies, the potential for AI to elevate both diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in GI is truly remarkable,” Spiegel said.
The study had no specific funding. Mascarenhas and Spiegel have declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
Should napping be recommended as a health behavior?
I was invited to a cardiology conference to talk about sleep, specifically the benefits of napping for health and cognition. After the talk, along with the usual questions related to my research, the cardiac surgeons in the room shifted the conversation to better resemble a group therapy session, sharing their harrowing personal tales of coping with sleep loss on the job. The most dramatic story involved a resident in a military hospital who, unable to avoid the effects of her mounting sleep loss, did a face plant into the open chest of the patient on the surgery table.
Epidemiology studies have associated insufficient sleep with increased disease risk, including cardiovascular and metabolic disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, as well as early mortality. Laboratory studies that experimentally restrict sleep show deficits across many cognitive domains, including executive functions, long-term memory, as well as emotional processing and regulation. Insufficient sleep in adolescents can longitudinally predict depression, thought problems, and lower crystallized intelligence, as well as structural brain properties. In older adults, it can predict the onset of chronic disease, including Alzheimer’s disease. Repeated nights of insufficient sleep (eg, three to four nights of four to six hours of sleep) have been shown to dysregulate hormone release, elevate body temperature and heart rate, stimulate appetite, and create an imbalance between the two branches of the autonomic nervous system by prolonging sympathetic activity and reducing parasympathetic restorative activity.
Given this ever-increasing list of ill effects of poor sleep, the quest for an effective, inexpensive, and manageable intervention for sleep loss often leads to the question: What about naps? A nap is typically defined as a period of sleep between five minutes to three hours, although naps can occur at any hour, they are usually daytime sleep behaviors. Between 40% and 60% of adults nap regularly, at least once a week, and, excluding novelty nap boutiques, they are free of charge and require little management or oversight. Yet, for all their apparent positive aspects, the jury is still out on whether naps should be recommended as a sleep loss countermeasure due to the lack of agreement across studies as to their effects on health.
Naps are studied in primarily two scientific contexts: laboratory experimental studies and epidemiological studies. Laboratory experimental studies measure the effect of short bouts of sleep as a fatigue countermeasure or cognitive enhancer under total sleep deprivation, sleep restriction (four to six hours of nighttime sleep), or well-rested conditions. These experiments are usually conducted in small (20 to 30 participants) convenience samples of young adults without medical and mental health problems. Performance on computer-based cognitive tasks is tested before and after naps of varying durations. By varying nap durations, researchers can test the impact of specific sleep stages on performance improvement. For example, in well-rested, intermediate chronotype individuals, a 30-minute nap between 13:00 and 15:00 will contain mostly stage 2 sleep, whereas a nap of up to 60 minutes will include slow wave sleep, and a 90-minute nap will end on a bout of rapid eye movement sleep. Studies that vary nap duration and therefore sleep quality have demonstrated an important principle of sleep’s effect on the brain and cognitive processing, namely that each sleep stage uniquely contributes to different aspects of cognitive and emotional processing. And that when naps are inserted into a person’s day, even in well-rested conditions, they tend to perform better after the nap than if they had stayed awake. Napping leads to greater vigilance, attention, memory, motor performance, and creativity, among others, compared with equivalent wake periods.1,2 Compared with the common fatigue countermeasure—caffeine—naps enhance explicit memory performance to a greater extent.
In the second context, epidemiological studies examining the impact of napping on health outcomes are typically conducted in older, less healthy, less active populations who tend to have poorer eating habits, multiple comorbidities, psychological problems, and a wide range of socioeconomic status. The strength of this approach is the sample size, which allows for correlations between factors on a large scale while providing enough data to hopefully control for possible confounds (eg, demographics, SES, exercise and eating habits, comorbidities). However, as the data were usually collected by a different group with different goals than the current epidemiologist exploring the data, there can be a disconnect between the current study goals and the variables that were initially collected by the original research team. As such, the current researcher is left with a patchwork of dissimilar variables that they must find a way to organize to answer the current question.3
When applied to the question of health effects of napping, epidemiology researchers typically divide the population into two groups, either based on a yes or no response to a napping question, or a frequency score where those who indicate napping more than one, two, or three times a week are distinguished as nappers compared to non-nappers who don’t meet these criteria. As the field lacks standard definitions for categorizing nap behavior, it is left to the discretion of the researcher to make these decisions. Furthermore, there is usually little other information collected about napping habits that could be used to better characterize napping behavior, such as lifetime nap habits, intentional vs accidental napping, and specific motivations for napping. These secondary factors have been shown to significantly moderate the effects of napping in experimental studies.
Considering the challenges, it is not surprising that there is wide disagreement across studies as to the health effects of napping.4 On the negative side, some studies have demonstrated that napping leads to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, and mortality.5-7 On the positive side, large cohort studies that control for some of these limitations report that habitual napping can predict better health outcomes, including lower mortality risk, reduced cardiovascular disease, and increased brain volume.8,9 Furthermore, age complicates matters as recent studies in older adults report that more frequent napping may be associated with reduced propensity for sleep during morning hours, and late afternoon naps were associated with earlier melatonin onset and increased evening activity, suggesting greater circadian misalignment in nappers and strategic use of napping as an evening fatigue countermeasure. More frequent napping in older adults was also correlated with lower cognitive performance in one of three cognitive domains. These results implicate more frequent and later-in-the-day napping habits in older adults may indicate altered circadian rhythms and reduced early morning sleep, with a potential functional impact on memory function. However, the same cautionary note applies to these studies, as few nap characteristics were reported that would help interpret the study outcomes and guide recommendations.10 Thus, the important and timely question of whether napping should be recommended does not, as of yet, have an answer. For clinicians weighing the multidimensional factors associated with napping in efforts to give a considered response to their patients, I can offer a set of questions that may help with tailoring responses to each individual. A lifetime history of napping can be an indicator of a health-promoting behavior, whereas a relatively recent desire to nap may reflect an underlying comorbidity that increases fatigue, sleepiness, and unintentional daytime sleep. Motivation for napping can also be revealing, as the desire to nap may be masking symptoms of depression and anxiety.11 Nighttime sleep disturbance may promote napping or, in some cases, arise from too much napping and should always be considered as a primary health measurement. In conclusion, it’s important to recognize the significance of addressing nighttime sleep disturbance and the potential impact of napping on overall health. For many, napping can be an essential and potent habit that can be encouraged throughout the lifespan for its salutary influences.
References
1. Mednick S, Nakayama K, Stickgold R. Sleep-dependent learning: a nap is as good as a night. Nat Neurosci. 2003 Jul;6(7):697-8. doi: 10.1038/nn1078. PMID: 12819785.
2. Jones BJ, Spencer RMC. Role of Napping for Learning across the Lifespan. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2020 Dec;6(4):290-297. Doi: 10.1007/s40675-020-00193-9. Epub 2020 Nov 12. PMID: 33816064; PMCID: PMC8011550.
3. Dunietz GL, Jansen EC, Hershner S, O’Brien LM, Peterson KE, Baylin A. Parallel Assessment Challenges in Nutritional and Sleep Epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Jun 1;190(6):954-961. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwaa230. PMID: 33089309; PMCID: PMC8168107.
4. Stang A. Daytime napping and health consequences: much epidemiologic work to do. Sleep Med. 2015 Jul;16(7):809-10. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2015.02.522. Epub 2015 Feb 14. PMID: 25772544.
5. Li, P., Gao, L., Yu, L., Zheng, X., Ulsa, M. C., Yang, H.-W., Gaba, A., Yaffe, K., Bennett, D. A., Buchman, A. S., Hu, K., & Leng, Y. (2022). Daytime napping and Alzheimer’s dementia: A potential bidirectional relationship. Alzheimer’s & Dementia : The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12636
6. Stang A, Dragano N., Moebus S, et al. Midday naps and the risk of coronary artery disease: results of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study Sleep, 35 (12) (2012), pp. 1705-1712
7. Wang K, Hu L, Wang L, Shu HN, Wang YT, Yuan Y, Cheng HP, Zhang YQ. Midday Napping, Nighttime Sleep, and Mortality: Prospective Cohort Evidence in China. Biomed Environ Sci. 2023 Aug 20;36(8):702-714. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.073. PMID: 37711082.
8. Naska A, Oikonomou E, Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Trichopoulos D. Siesta in healthy adults and coronary mortality in the general population. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb 12;167(3):296-301. Doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.296. PMID: 17296887.
9. Paz V, Dashti HS, Garfield V. Is there an association between daytime napping, cognitive function, and brain volume? A Mendelian randomization study in the UK Biobank. Sleep Health. 2023 Oct;9(5):786-793. Doi: 10.1016/j.sleh.2023.05.002. Epub 2023 Jun 20. PMID: 37344293.
10. Mednick SC. Is napping in older adults problematic or productive? The answer may lie in the reason they nap. Sleep. 2024 May 10;47(5):zsae056. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsae056. PMID: 38421680; PMCID: PMC11082470.
11. Duggan KA, McDevitt EA, Whitehurst LN, Mednick SC. To Nap, Perchance to DREAM: A Factor Analysis of College Students’ Self-Reported Reasons for Napping. Behav Sleep Med. 2018 Mar-Apr;16(2):135-153. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2016.1178115. Epub 2016 Jun 27. PMID: 27347727; PMCID: PMC5374038.
I was invited to a cardiology conference to talk about sleep, specifically the benefits of napping for health and cognition. After the talk, along with the usual questions related to my research, the cardiac surgeons in the room shifted the conversation to better resemble a group therapy session, sharing their harrowing personal tales of coping with sleep loss on the job. The most dramatic story involved a resident in a military hospital who, unable to avoid the effects of her mounting sleep loss, did a face plant into the open chest of the patient on the surgery table.
Epidemiology studies have associated insufficient sleep with increased disease risk, including cardiovascular and metabolic disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, as well as early mortality. Laboratory studies that experimentally restrict sleep show deficits across many cognitive domains, including executive functions, long-term memory, as well as emotional processing and regulation. Insufficient sleep in adolescents can longitudinally predict depression, thought problems, and lower crystallized intelligence, as well as structural brain properties. In older adults, it can predict the onset of chronic disease, including Alzheimer’s disease. Repeated nights of insufficient sleep (eg, three to four nights of four to six hours of sleep) have been shown to dysregulate hormone release, elevate body temperature and heart rate, stimulate appetite, and create an imbalance between the two branches of the autonomic nervous system by prolonging sympathetic activity and reducing parasympathetic restorative activity.
Given this ever-increasing list of ill effects of poor sleep, the quest for an effective, inexpensive, and manageable intervention for sleep loss often leads to the question: What about naps? A nap is typically defined as a period of sleep between five minutes to three hours, although naps can occur at any hour, they are usually daytime sleep behaviors. Between 40% and 60% of adults nap regularly, at least once a week, and, excluding novelty nap boutiques, they are free of charge and require little management or oversight. Yet, for all their apparent positive aspects, the jury is still out on whether naps should be recommended as a sleep loss countermeasure due to the lack of agreement across studies as to their effects on health.
Naps are studied in primarily two scientific contexts: laboratory experimental studies and epidemiological studies. Laboratory experimental studies measure the effect of short bouts of sleep as a fatigue countermeasure or cognitive enhancer under total sleep deprivation, sleep restriction (four to six hours of nighttime sleep), or well-rested conditions. These experiments are usually conducted in small (20 to 30 participants) convenience samples of young adults without medical and mental health problems. Performance on computer-based cognitive tasks is tested before and after naps of varying durations. By varying nap durations, researchers can test the impact of specific sleep stages on performance improvement. For example, in well-rested, intermediate chronotype individuals, a 30-minute nap between 13:00 and 15:00 will contain mostly stage 2 sleep, whereas a nap of up to 60 minutes will include slow wave sleep, and a 90-minute nap will end on a bout of rapid eye movement sleep. Studies that vary nap duration and therefore sleep quality have demonstrated an important principle of sleep’s effect on the brain and cognitive processing, namely that each sleep stage uniquely contributes to different aspects of cognitive and emotional processing. And that when naps are inserted into a person’s day, even in well-rested conditions, they tend to perform better after the nap than if they had stayed awake. Napping leads to greater vigilance, attention, memory, motor performance, and creativity, among others, compared with equivalent wake periods.1,2 Compared with the common fatigue countermeasure—caffeine—naps enhance explicit memory performance to a greater extent.
In the second context, epidemiological studies examining the impact of napping on health outcomes are typically conducted in older, less healthy, less active populations who tend to have poorer eating habits, multiple comorbidities, psychological problems, and a wide range of socioeconomic status. The strength of this approach is the sample size, which allows for correlations between factors on a large scale while providing enough data to hopefully control for possible confounds (eg, demographics, SES, exercise and eating habits, comorbidities). However, as the data were usually collected by a different group with different goals than the current epidemiologist exploring the data, there can be a disconnect between the current study goals and the variables that were initially collected by the original research team. As such, the current researcher is left with a patchwork of dissimilar variables that they must find a way to organize to answer the current question.3
When applied to the question of health effects of napping, epidemiology researchers typically divide the population into two groups, either based on a yes or no response to a napping question, or a frequency score where those who indicate napping more than one, two, or three times a week are distinguished as nappers compared to non-nappers who don’t meet these criteria. As the field lacks standard definitions for categorizing nap behavior, it is left to the discretion of the researcher to make these decisions. Furthermore, there is usually little other information collected about napping habits that could be used to better characterize napping behavior, such as lifetime nap habits, intentional vs accidental napping, and specific motivations for napping. These secondary factors have been shown to significantly moderate the effects of napping in experimental studies.
Considering the challenges, it is not surprising that there is wide disagreement across studies as to the health effects of napping.4 On the negative side, some studies have demonstrated that napping leads to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, and mortality.5-7 On the positive side, large cohort studies that control for some of these limitations report that habitual napping can predict better health outcomes, including lower mortality risk, reduced cardiovascular disease, and increased brain volume.8,9 Furthermore, age complicates matters as recent studies in older adults report that more frequent napping may be associated with reduced propensity for sleep during morning hours, and late afternoon naps were associated with earlier melatonin onset and increased evening activity, suggesting greater circadian misalignment in nappers and strategic use of napping as an evening fatigue countermeasure. More frequent napping in older adults was also correlated with lower cognitive performance in one of three cognitive domains. These results implicate more frequent and later-in-the-day napping habits in older adults may indicate altered circadian rhythms and reduced early morning sleep, with a potential functional impact on memory function. However, the same cautionary note applies to these studies, as few nap characteristics were reported that would help interpret the study outcomes and guide recommendations.10 Thus, the important and timely question of whether napping should be recommended does not, as of yet, have an answer. For clinicians weighing the multidimensional factors associated with napping in efforts to give a considered response to their patients, I can offer a set of questions that may help with tailoring responses to each individual. A lifetime history of napping can be an indicator of a health-promoting behavior, whereas a relatively recent desire to nap may reflect an underlying comorbidity that increases fatigue, sleepiness, and unintentional daytime sleep. Motivation for napping can also be revealing, as the desire to nap may be masking symptoms of depression and anxiety.11 Nighttime sleep disturbance may promote napping or, in some cases, arise from too much napping and should always be considered as a primary health measurement. In conclusion, it’s important to recognize the significance of addressing nighttime sleep disturbance and the potential impact of napping on overall health. For many, napping can be an essential and potent habit that can be encouraged throughout the lifespan for its salutary influences.
References
1. Mednick S, Nakayama K, Stickgold R. Sleep-dependent learning: a nap is as good as a night. Nat Neurosci. 2003 Jul;6(7):697-8. doi: 10.1038/nn1078. PMID: 12819785.
2. Jones BJ, Spencer RMC. Role of Napping for Learning across the Lifespan. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2020 Dec;6(4):290-297. Doi: 10.1007/s40675-020-00193-9. Epub 2020 Nov 12. PMID: 33816064; PMCID: PMC8011550.
3. Dunietz GL, Jansen EC, Hershner S, O’Brien LM, Peterson KE, Baylin A. Parallel Assessment Challenges in Nutritional and Sleep Epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Jun 1;190(6):954-961. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwaa230. PMID: 33089309; PMCID: PMC8168107.
4. Stang A. Daytime napping and health consequences: much epidemiologic work to do. Sleep Med. 2015 Jul;16(7):809-10. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2015.02.522. Epub 2015 Feb 14. PMID: 25772544.
5. Li, P., Gao, L., Yu, L., Zheng, X., Ulsa, M. C., Yang, H.-W., Gaba, A., Yaffe, K., Bennett, D. A., Buchman, A. S., Hu, K., & Leng, Y. (2022). Daytime napping and Alzheimer’s dementia: A potential bidirectional relationship. Alzheimer’s & Dementia : The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12636
6. Stang A, Dragano N., Moebus S, et al. Midday naps and the risk of coronary artery disease: results of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study Sleep, 35 (12) (2012), pp. 1705-1712
7. Wang K, Hu L, Wang L, Shu HN, Wang YT, Yuan Y, Cheng HP, Zhang YQ. Midday Napping, Nighttime Sleep, and Mortality: Prospective Cohort Evidence in China. Biomed Environ Sci. 2023 Aug 20;36(8):702-714. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.073. PMID: 37711082.
8. Naska A, Oikonomou E, Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Trichopoulos D. Siesta in healthy adults and coronary mortality in the general population. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb 12;167(3):296-301. Doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.296. PMID: 17296887.
9. Paz V, Dashti HS, Garfield V. Is there an association between daytime napping, cognitive function, and brain volume? A Mendelian randomization study in the UK Biobank. Sleep Health. 2023 Oct;9(5):786-793. Doi: 10.1016/j.sleh.2023.05.002. Epub 2023 Jun 20. PMID: 37344293.
10. Mednick SC. Is napping in older adults problematic or productive? The answer may lie in the reason they nap. Sleep. 2024 May 10;47(5):zsae056. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsae056. PMID: 38421680; PMCID: PMC11082470.
11. Duggan KA, McDevitt EA, Whitehurst LN, Mednick SC. To Nap, Perchance to DREAM: A Factor Analysis of College Students’ Self-Reported Reasons for Napping. Behav Sleep Med. 2018 Mar-Apr;16(2):135-153. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2016.1178115. Epub 2016 Jun 27. PMID: 27347727; PMCID: PMC5374038.
I was invited to a cardiology conference to talk about sleep, specifically the benefits of napping for health and cognition. After the talk, along with the usual questions related to my research, the cardiac surgeons in the room shifted the conversation to better resemble a group therapy session, sharing their harrowing personal tales of coping with sleep loss on the job. The most dramatic story involved a resident in a military hospital who, unable to avoid the effects of her mounting sleep loss, did a face plant into the open chest of the patient on the surgery table.
Epidemiology studies have associated insufficient sleep with increased disease risk, including cardiovascular and metabolic disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, as well as early mortality. Laboratory studies that experimentally restrict sleep show deficits across many cognitive domains, including executive functions, long-term memory, as well as emotional processing and regulation. Insufficient sleep in adolescents can longitudinally predict depression, thought problems, and lower crystallized intelligence, as well as structural brain properties. In older adults, it can predict the onset of chronic disease, including Alzheimer’s disease. Repeated nights of insufficient sleep (eg, three to four nights of four to six hours of sleep) have been shown to dysregulate hormone release, elevate body temperature and heart rate, stimulate appetite, and create an imbalance between the two branches of the autonomic nervous system by prolonging sympathetic activity and reducing parasympathetic restorative activity.
Given this ever-increasing list of ill effects of poor sleep, the quest for an effective, inexpensive, and manageable intervention for sleep loss often leads to the question: What about naps? A nap is typically defined as a period of sleep between five minutes to three hours, although naps can occur at any hour, they are usually daytime sleep behaviors. Between 40% and 60% of adults nap regularly, at least once a week, and, excluding novelty nap boutiques, they are free of charge and require little management or oversight. Yet, for all their apparent positive aspects, the jury is still out on whether naps should be recommended as a sleep loss countermeasure due to the lack of agreement across studies as to their effects on health.
Naps are studied in primarily two scientific contexts: laboratory experimental studies and epidemiological studies. Laboratory experimental studies measure the effect of short bouts of sleep as a fatigue countermeasure or cognitive enhancer under total sleep deprivation, sleep restriction (four to six hours of nighttime sleep), or well-rested conditions. These experiments are usually conducted in small (20 to 30 participants) convenience samples of young adults without medical and mental health problems. Performance on computer-based cognitive tasks is tested before and after naps of varying durations. By varying nap durations, researchers can test the impact of specific sleep stages on performance improvement. For example, in well-rested, intermediate chronotype individuals, a 30-minute nap between 13:00 and 15:00 will contain mostly stage 2 sleep, whereas a nap of up to 60 minutes will include slow wave sleep, and a 90-minute nap will end on a bout of rapid eye movement sleep. Studies that vary nap duration and therefore sleep quality have demonstrated an important principle of sleep’s effect on the brain and cognitive processing, namely that each sleep stage uniquely contributes to different aspects of cognitive and emotional processing. And that when naps are inserted into a person’s day, even in well-rested conditions, they tend to perform better after the nap than if they had stayed awake. Napping leads to greater vigilance, attention, memory, motor performance, and creativity, among others, compared with equivalent wake periods.1,2 Compared with the common fatigue countermeasure—caffeine—naps enhance explicit memory performance to a greater extent.
In the second context, epidemiological studies examining the impact of napping on health outcomes are typically conducted in older, less healthy, less active populations who tend to have poorer eating habits, multiple comorbidities, psychological problems, and a wide range of socioeconomic status. The strength of this approach is the sample size, which allows for correlations between factors on a large scale while providing enough data to hopefully control for possible confounds (eg, demographics, SES, exercise and eating habits, comorbidities). However, as the data were usually collected by a different group with different goals than the current epidemiologist exploring the data, there can be a disconnect between the current study goals and the variables that were initially collected by the original research team. As such, the current researcher is left with a patchwork of dissimilar variables that they must find a way to organize to answer the current question.3
When applied to the question of health effects of napping, epidemiology researchers typically divide the population into two groups, either based on a yes or no response to a napping question, or a frequency score where those who indicate napping more than one, two, or three times a week are distinguished as nappers compared to non-nappers who don’t meet these criteria. As the field lacks standard definitions for categorizing nap behavior, it is left to the discretion of the researcher to make these decisions. Furthermore, there is usually little other information collected about napping habits that could be used to better characterize napping behavior, such as lifetime nap habits, intentional vs accidental napping, and specific motivations for napping. These secondary factors have been shown to significantly moderate the effects of napping in experimental studies.
Considering the challenges, it is not surprising that there is wide disagreement across studies as to the health effects of napping.4 On the negative side, some studies have demonstrated that napping leads to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, and mortality.5-7 On the positive side, large cohort studies that control for some of these limitations report that habitual napping can predict better health outcomes, including lower mortality risk, reduced cardiovascular disease, and increased brain volume.8,9 Furthermore, age complicates matters as recent studies in older adults report that more frequent napping may be associated with reduced propensity for sleep during morning hours, and late afternoon naps were associated with earlier melatonin onset and increased evening activity, suggesting greater circadian misalignment in nappers and strategic use of napping as an evening fatigue countermeasure. More frequent napping in older adults was also correlated with lower cognitive performance in one of three cognitive domains. These results implicate more frequent and later-in-the-day napping habits in older adults may indicate altered circadian rhythms and reduced early morning sleep, with a potential functional impact on memory function. However, the same cautionary note applies to these studies, as few nap characteristics were reported that would help interpret the study outcomes and guide recommendations.10 Thus, the important and timely question of whether napping should be recommended does not, as of yet, have an answer. For clinicians weighing the multidimensional factors associated with napping in efforts to give a considered response to their patients, I can offer a set of questions that may help with tailoring responses to each individual. A lifetime history of napping can be an indicator of a health-promoting behavior, whereas a relatively recent desire to nap may reflect an underlying comorbidity that increases fatigue, sleepiness, and unintentional daytime sleep. Motivation for napping can also be revealing, as the desire to nap may be masking symptoms of depression and anxiety.11 Nighttime sleep disturbance may promote napping or, in some cases, arise from too much napping and should always be considered as a primary health measurement. In conclusion, it’s important to recognize the significance of addressing nighttime sleep disturbance and the potential impact of napping on overall health. For many, napping can be an essential and potent habit that can be encouraged throughout the lifespan for its salutary influences.
References
1. Mednick S, Nakayama K, Stickgold R. Sleep-dependent learning: a nap is as good as a night. Nat Neurosci. 2003 Jul;6(7):697-8. doi: 10.1038/nn1078. PMID: 12819785.
2. Jones BJ, Spencer RMC. Role of Napping for Learning across the Lifespan. Curr Sleep Med Rep. 2020 Dec;6(4):290-297. Doi: 10.1007/s40675-020-00193-9. Epub 2020 Nov 12. PMID: 33816064; PMCID: PMC8011550.
3. Dunietz GL, Jansen EC, Hershner S, O’Brien LM, Peterson KE, Baylin A. Parallel Assessment Challenges in Nutritional and Sleep Epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2021 Jun 1;190(6):954-961. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwaa230. PMID: 33089309; PMCID: PMC8168107.
4. Stang A. Daytime napping and health consequences: much epidemiologic work to do. Sleep Med. 2015 Jul;16(7):809-10. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2015.02.522. Epub 2015 Feb 14. PMID: 25772544.
5. Li, P., Gao, L., Yu, L., Zheng, X., Ulsa, M. C., Yang, H.-W., Gaba, A., Yaffe, K., Bennett, D. A., Buchman, A. S., Hu, K., & Leng, Y. (2022). Daytime napping and Alzheimer’s dementia: A potential bidirectional relationship. Alzheimer’s & Dementia : The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12636
6. Stang A, Dragano N., Moebus S, et al. Midday naps and the risk of coronary artery disease: results of the Heinz Nixdorf Recall Study Sleep, 35 (12) (2012), pp. 1705-1712
7. Wang K, Hu L, Wang L, Shu HN, Wang YT, Yuan Y, Cheng HP, Zhang YQ. Midday Napping, Nighttime Sleep, and Mortality: Prospective Cohort Evidence in China. Biomed Environ Sci. 2023 Aug 20;36(8):702-714. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.073. PMID: 37711082.
8. Naska A, Oikonomou E, Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Trichopoulos D. Siesta in healthy adults and coronary mortality in the general population. Arch Intern Med. 2007 Feb 12;167(3):296-301. Doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.3.296. PMID: 17296887.
9. Paz V, Dashti HS, Garfield V. Is there an association between daytime napping, cognitive function, and brain volume? A Mendelian randomization study in the UK Biobank. Sleep Health. 2023 Oct;9(5):786-793. Doi: 10.1016/j.sleh.2023.05.002. Epub 2023 Jun 20. PMID: 37344293.
10. Mednick SC. Is napping in older adults problematic or productive? The answer may lie in the reason they nap. Sleep. 2024 May 10;47(5):zsae056. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsae056. PMID: 38421680; PMCID: PMC11082470.
11. Duggan KA, McDevitt EA, Whitehurst LN, Mednick SC. To Nap, Perchance to DREAM: A Factor Analysis of College Students’ Self-Reported Reasons for Napping. Behav Sleep Med. 2018 Mar-Apr;16(2):135-153. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2016.1178115. Epub 2016 Jun 27. PMID: 27347727; PMCID: PMC5374038.
Exciting opportunities for tobacco treatment
FROM THE CHEST TOBACCO/VAPING WORK GROUP –
The recent changes enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are creating unprecedented opportunities for pulmonologists and medical centers to help treat people with tobacco use disorder. As we face a critical moment in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, it is essential that we leverage these changes. In doing so, CHEST aims to serve as an active bridge, informing health care providers of this unique federal opportunity that benefits both patients and clinicians.
A quick primer on “incident to” services
These CMS changes create an important shift in how “incident to” services can be billed. These are any services that are incident to (occur because of) a provider evaluation. These previously required direct supervision of the provider (in the same building) to be billed at the provider rate. Now “general supervision” suffices, which means the physician can be available by phone/video call. These services can then often be billed at a higher rate. In the case of treating dependence on tobacco products, any tobacco treatment specialist (TTS) employed by a practice who cares for the patient subsequent to the initial encounter can now be reimbursed in an increased manner. Better reimbursement for this vital service will ideally lead to better utilization of these resources and better public health.
The Medicare solution is here
With the CMS rule changes in 2023 and their reaffirmation in 2024, the structure has been put in place to allow physicians, medical centers, and TTSs to create contractual relationships that can significantly improve patient care. TTSs are health care professionals from a wide variety of disciplines who have received specialized training in tobacco and nicotine addiction and treatment strategies. By expanding billing and, thus, service opportunities, these CMS modifications empower health care providers to leverage the existing fee-for-service model, translating to better care and sustainable revenue streams.
Key changes in the CMS 2023 rule
One of the most notable changes involves the supervision requirements for auxiliary personnel, which now permit general supervision. Specifically, physicians are not required to be physically present during clinical encounters but can supervise TTSs virtually through real-time audio/video technology. This is a vital shift that enhances flexibility in patient care and expands the capabilities of health care teams.
According to 42 CFR § 410.26, TTSs qualify as auxiliary health care providers, meaning that they can operate under the supervision of a physician or other designated providers. This revised framework gives practices maximum autonomy in their staffing models and enhances their ability to offer comprehensive care. For example, TTSs can function as patient navigators, ensuring patients using tobacco receive medically appropriate early lung cancer screening and other related medical services.
Expanding access to behavioral health services
The changes aim not only to increase the efficiency of health care delivery but also to reflect a commitment to expanding access to vital behavioral health services. Key takeaways from a summary of the CMS 2023 rule include:
- The goal of these changes is to enhance access to behavioral health services across the board.
- The change in supervision requirements applies to auxiliary personnel offering behavioral health services incident to a physician’s services.
- Both patients and physicians will benefit from an expanded clinical team and improved reimbursement options for the services provided.
By leveraging these opportunities, physicians and their teams can collaborate with TTSs to make significant strides in helping patients address and overcome their dependence on tobacco and nicotine.
The outlook: CMS 2024 rule
The current outlook for 2024 and beyond promises even more opportunities as part of CMS’ ongoing Behavioral Health Strategy. This includes enabling mental health counselors (MHCs) and marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to bill Medicare independently, initiating vital coverage for mental health services that align with tobacco cessation efforts.
Physicians and medical centers can contract with MFTs and MHCs who are TTSs to provide tobacco addiction services. TTSs will serve as essential partners in multidisciplinary care teams, enhancing the overall health care landscape while ensuring that patients receive comprehensive support tailored to their needs.
Telehealth policy changes: Making services accessible
The White House also recently reinforced the importance of telehealth services, providing further avenues for TTSs to reach patients effectively. With expanded geographic locations for service delivery, care can be provided from virtually anywhere, including when the patient is at home.
Key telehealth provisions include:
- Extended telehealth services through 2024
- Elimination of in-person requirements for mental health services
- Expanded eligibility for providers qualified to provide telehealth services
Practical implications for providers
These developments not only simplify the establishment of tobacco treatment programs but also create better avenues to develop partnerships between physicians, hospitals, medical centers, multidisciplinary practices, and TTSs. Importantly, these clinicians will be compensated directly for the tobacco treatment services they provide.
Conclusion
This is a pivotal moment for pulmonologists and TTSs to meaningfully claim their place within the health care space. As we strive to “make smoking history,” we must act on these CMS opportunities. As providers, we must be proactive, collaborate across disciplines, and serve as advocates for our patients.
Together, we can turn the tide against tobacco use and improve health outcomes nationwide.
Call to action
CHEST encourages all health care professionals to engage with the available resources, collaborate with TTSs, and take appropriate advantage of these new policies for the benefit of our patients. Let’s work together to ensure that we seize this moment and make a real difference in the lives of those affected by tobacco addiction.
Those interested in more information—or to access additional resources and assistance in locating TTSs—please contact Matthew Bars at [email protected] or +1 (800) 45-SMOKE.
FROM THE CHEST TOBACCO/VAPING WORK GROUP –
The recent changes enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are creating unprecedented opportunities for pulmonologists and medical centers to help treat people with tobacco use disorder. As we face a critical moment in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, it is essential that we leverage these changes. In doing so, CHEST aims to serve as an active bridge, informing health care providers of this unique federal opportunity that benefits both patients and clinicians.
A quick primer on “incident to” services
These CMS changes create an important shift in how “incident to” services can be billed. These are any services that are incident to (occur because of) a provider evaluation. These previously required direct supervision of the provider (in the same building) to be billed at the provider rate. Now “general supervision” suffices, which means the physician can be available by phone/video call. These services can then often be billed at a higher rate. In the case of treating dependence on tobacco products, any tobacco treatment specialist (TTS) employed by a practice who cares for the patient subsequent to the initial encounter can now be reimbursed in an increased manner. Better reimbursement for this vital service will ideally lead to better utilization of these resources and better public health.
The Medicare solution is here
With the CMS rule changes in 2023 and their reaffirmation in 2024, the structure has been put in place to allow physicians, medical centers, and TTSs to create contractual relationships that can significantly improve patient care. TTSs are health care professionals from a wide variety of disciplines who have received specialized training in tobacco and nicotine addiction and treatment strategies. By expanding billing and, thus, service opportunities, these CMS modifications empower health care providers to leverage the existing fee-for-service model, translating to better care and sustainable revenue streams.
Key changes in the CMS 2023 rule
One of the most notable changes involves the supervision requirements for auxiliary personnel, which now permit general supervision. Specifically, physicians are not required to be physically present during clinical encounters but can supervise TTSs virtually through real-time audio/video technology. This is a vital shift that enhances flexibility in patient care and expands the capabilities of health care teams.
According to 42 CFR § 410.26, TTSs qualify as auxiliary health care providers, meaning that they can operate under the supervision of a physician or other designated providers. This revised framework gives practices maximum autonomy in their staffing models and enhances their ability to offer comprehensive care. For example, TTSs can function as patient navigators, ensuring patients using tobacco receive medically appropriate early lung cancer screening and other related medical services.
Expanding access to behavioral health services
The changes aim not only to increase the efficiency of health care delivery but also to reflect a commitment to expanding access to vital behavioral health services. Key takeaways from a summary of the CMS 2023 rule include:
- The goal of these changes is to enhance access to behavioral health services across the board.
- The change in supervision requirements applies to auxiliary personnel offering behavioral health services incident to a physician’s services.
- Both patients and physicians will benefit from an expanded clinical team and improved reimbursement options for the services provided.
By leveraging these opportunities, physicians and their teams can collaborate with TTSs to make significant strides in helping patients address and overcome their dependence on tobacco and nicotine.
The outlook: CMS 2024 rule
The current outlook for 2024 and beyond promises even more opportunities as part of CMS’ ongoing Behavioral Health Strategy. This includes enabling mental health counselors (MHCs) and marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to bill Medicare independently, initiating vital coverage for mental health services that align with tobacco cessation efforts.
Physicians and medical centers can contract with MFTs and MHCs who are TTSs to provide tobacco addiction services. TTSs will serve as essential partners in multidisciplinary care teams, enhancing the overall health care landscape while ensuring that patients receive comprehensive support tailored to their needs.
Telehealth policy changes: Making services accessible
The White House also recently reinforced the importance of telehealth services, providing further avenues for TTSs to reach patients effectively. With expanded geographic locations for service delivery, care can be provided from virtually anywhere, including when the patient is at home.
Key telehealth provisions include:
- Extended telehealth services through 2024
- Elimination of in-person requirements for mental health services
- Expanded eligibility for providers qualified to provide telehealth services
Practical implications for providers
These developments not only simplify the establishment of tobacco treatment programs but also create better avenues to develop partnerships between physicians, hospitals, medical centers, multidisciplinary practices, and TTSs. Importantly, these clinicians will be compensated directly for the tobacco treatment services they provide.
Conclusion
This is a pivotal moment for pulmonologists and TTSs to meaningfully claim their place within the health care space. As we strive to “make smoking history,” we must act on these CMS opportunities. As providers, we must be proactive, collaborate across disciplines, and serve as advocates for our patients.
Together, we can turn the tide against tobacco use and improve health outcomes nationwide.
Call to action
CHEST encourages all health care professionals to engage with the available resources, collaborate with TTSs, and take appropriate advantage of these new policies for the benefit of our patients. Let’s work together to ensure that we seize this moment and make a real difference in the lives of those affected by tobacco addiction.
Those interested in more information—or to access additional resources and assistance in locating TTSs—please contact Matthew Bars at [email protected] or +1 (800) 45-SMOKE.
FROM THE CHEST TOBACCO/VAPING WORK GROUP –
The recent changes enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are creating unprecedented opportunities for pulmonologists and medical centers to help treat people with tobacco use disorder. As we face a critical moment in the fight against tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, it is essential that we leverage these changes. In doing so, CHEST aims to serve as an active bridge, informing health care providers of this unique federal opportunity that benefits both patients and clinicians.
A quick primer on “incident to” services
These CMS changes create an important shift in how “incident to” services can be billed. These are any services that are incident to (occur because of) a provider evaluation. These previously required direct supervision of the provider (in the same building) to be billed at the provider rate. Now “general supervision” suffices, which means the physician can be available by phone/video call. These services can then often be billed at a higher rate. In the case of treating dependence on tobacco products, any tobacco treatment specialist (TTS) employed by a practice who cares for the patient subsequent to the initial encounter can now be reimbursed in an increased manner. Better reimbursement for this vital service will ideally lead to better utilization of these resources and better public health.
The Medicare solution is here
With the CMS rule changes in 2023 and their reaffirmation in 2024, the structure has been put in place to allow physicians, medical centers, and TTSs to create contractual relationships that can significantly improve patient care. TTSs are health care professionals from a wide variety of disciplines who have received specialized training in tobacco and nicotine addiction and treatment strategies. By expanding billing and, thus, service opportunities, these CMS modifications empower health care providers to leverage the existing fee-for-service model, translating to better care and sustainable revenue streams.
Key changes in the CMS 2023 rule
One of the most notable changes involves the supervision requirements for auxiliary personnel, which now permit general supervision. Specifically, physicians are not required to be physically present during clinical encounters but can supervise TTSs virtually through real-time audio/video technology. This is a vital shift that enhances flexibility in patient care and expands the capabilities of health care teams.
According to 42 CFR § 410.26, TTSs qualify as auxiliary health care providers, meaning that they can operate under the supervision of a physician or other designated providers. This revised framework gives practices maximum autonomy in their staffing models and enhances their ability to offer comprehensive care. For example, TTSs can function as patient navigators, ensuring patients using tobacco receive medically appropriate early lung cancer screening and other related medical services.
Expanding access to behavioral health services
The changes aim not only to increase the efficiency of health care delivery but also to reflect a commitment to expanding access to vital behavioral health services. Key takeaways from a summary of the CMS 2023 rule include:
- The goal of these changes is to enhance access to behavioral health services across the board.
- The change in supervision requirements applies to auxiliary personnel offering behavioral health services incident to a physician’s services.
- Both patients and physicians will benefit from an expanded clinical team and improved reimbursement options for the services provided.
By leveraging these opportunities, physicians and their teams can collaborate with TTSs to make significant strides in helping patients address and overcome their dependence on tobacco and nicotine.
The outlook: CMS 2024 rule
The current outlook for 2024 and beyond promises even more opportunities as part of CMS’ ongoing Behavioral Health Strategy. This includes enabling mental health counselors (MHCs) and marriage and family therapists (MFTs) to bill Medicare independently, initiating vital coverage for mental health services that align with tobacco cessation efforts.
Physicians and medical centers can contract with MFTs and MHCs who are TTSs to provide tobacco addiction services. TTSs will serve as essential partners in multidisciplinary care teams, enhancing the overall health care landscape while ensuring that patients receive comprehensive support tailored to their needs.
Telehealth policy changes: Making services accessible
The White House also recently reinforced the importance of telehealth services, providing further avenues for TTSs to reach patients effectively. With expanded geographic locations for service delivery, care can be provided from virtually anywhere, including when the patient is at home.
Key telehealth provisions include:
- Extended telehealth services through 2024
- Elimination of in-person requirements for mental health services
- Expanded eligibility for providers qualified to provide telehealth services
Practical implications for providers
These developments not only simplify the establishment of tobacco treatment programs but also create better avenues to develop partnerships between physicians, hospitals, medical centers, multidisciplinary practices, and TTSs. Importantly, these clinicians will be compensated directly for the tobacco treatment services they provide.
Conclusion
This is a pivotal moment for pulmonologists and TTSs to meaningfully claim their place within the health care space. As we strive to “make smoking history,” we must act on these CMS opportunities. As providers, we must be proactive, collaborate across disciplines, and serve as advocates for our patients.
Together, we can turn the tide against tobacco use and improve health outcomes nationwide.
Call to action
CHEST encourages all health care professionals to engage with the available resources, collaborate with TTSs, and take appropriate advantage of these new policies for the benefit of our patients. Let’s work together to ensure that we seize this moment and make a real difference in the lives of those affected by tobacco addiction.
Those interested in more information—or to access additional resources and assistance in locating TTSs—please contact Matthew Bars at [email protected] or +1 (800) 45-SMOKE.
Top reads from the CHEST journal portfolio
Journal CHEST®
By Claire Launois, MD, PhD, and colleagues
It has long been a critique of studies that evaluate the impact of positive airway pressure (PAP) adherence on positive health outcomes that patients who are more adherent to PAP may also be more adherent to other health behaviors that contribute to those positive outcomes, such as incident cardiac events in patients with OSA. An association was found between multiple proxies of the healthy adherer effect and later PAP adherence in patients with OSA, the highest being related to proxies of cardiovascular health. A preceding reduction in health care costs was also found in these patients. These findings may help contribute to interpretation and validation of new studies to help us better understand the impact of PAP treatment of OSA.
– Commentary by Sreelatha Naik, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
CHEST® Critical Care
By Burton H. Shen, MD, and colleagues
Asthma is a common reason for hospital admission. Between 5% and 35% of patients who are admitted due to asthma are also admitted to the ICU during their hospital stay. For adolescents and young adults, there is variability in admission to the PICU vs adult ICU. This study specifically evaluated patients aged 12 to 26 years old and included hospitals with both a PICU and an adult ICU. The results show us that age, rather than specific clinical characteristics, is the strongest predictor for PICU admission. Patients aged 18 years and younger were more likely to be admitted to the PICU. This is an important consideration, as hospital bedspace is often more limited during viral season in pediatric hospitals and PICUs. This information is also important for outpatient asthma providers to consider as they counsel their patients and provide long-term management before and after these hospital stays.
– Commentary by Lisa Ulrich, MD, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
CHEST® Pulmonary
Short-Acting Beta-Agonists, Antibiotics, Oral Corticosteroids, and the Associated Burden of COPD
By Mohit Bhutani, MD, FCCP, and colleagues
This study notably highlights the fact that high frequency use of short-acting beta-agonists, antibiotics, and oral corticosteroids may not directly raise the likelihood of an exacerbation but rather may be a sign of worsening disease or poorly managed COPD.
Future studies should investigate the factors that contribute to patients’ frequent prescription use, such as understanding the underlying causes of their exacerbations and other pertinent factors. Additionally, details about patient adherence, a complete clinical history, and the treatment of any further chronic disorders are pivotal for a more complete picture. Enhanced methods for recognizing mild/moderate and severe exacerbations, including patient-reported outcomes, in order to have a better understanding of the influence on drug use and outcomes will be extremely helpful as well. To understand how medications impact results, further studies should look for causal links between medication use and exacerbations.
Lastly, Canadian research on COPD definitely offers insightful information, but when extrapolating these results to the United States, one must take into account variations in the health care system, demographics, and regional patterns along with social determinants of health.
– Commentary by Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
Journal CHEST®
By Claire Launois, MD, PhD, and colleagues
It has long been a critique of studies that evaluate the impact of positive airway pressure (PAP) adherence on positive health outcomes that patients who are more adherent to PAP may also be more adherent to other health behaviors that contribute to those positive outcomes, such as incident cardiac events in patients with OSA. An association was found between multiple proxies of the healthy adherer effect and later PAP adherence in patients with OSA, the highest being related to proxies of cardiovascular health. A preceding reduction in health care costs was also found in these patients. These findings may help contribute to interpretation and validation of new studies to help us better understand the impact of PAP treatment of OSA.
– Commentary by Sreelatha Naik, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
CHEST® Critical Care
By Burton H. Shen, MD, and colleagues
Asthma is a common reason for hospital admission. Between 5% and 35% of patients who are admitted due to asthma are also admitted to the ICU during their hospital stay. For adolescents and young adults, there is variability in admission to the PICU vs adult ICU. This study specifically evaluated patients aged 12 to 26 years old and included hospitals with both a PICU and an adult ICU. The results show us that age, rather than specific clinical characteristics, is the strongest predictor for PICU admission. Patients aged 18 years and younger were more likely to be admitted to the PICU. This is an important consideration, as hospital bedspace is often more limited during viral season in pediatric hospitals and PICUs. This information is also important for outpatient asthma providers to consider as they counsel their patients and provide long-term management before and after these hospital stays.
– Commentary by Lisa Ulrich, MD, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
CHEST® Pulmonary
Short-Acting Beta-Agonists, Antibiotics, Oral Corticosteroids, and the Associated Burden of COPD
By Mohit Bhutani, MD, FCCP, and colleagues
This study notably highlights the fact that high frequency use of short-acting beta-agonists, antibiotics, and oral corticosteroids may not directly raise the likelihood of an exacerbation but rather may be a sign of worsening disease or poorly managed COPD.
Future studies should investigate the factors that contribute to patients’ frequent prescription use, such as understanding the underlying causes of their exacerbations and other pertinent factors. Additionally, details about patient adherence, a complete clinical history, and the treatment of any further chronic disorders are pivotal for a more complete picture. Enhanced methods for recognizing mild/moderate and severe exacerbations, including patient-reported outcomes, in order to have a better understanding of the influence on drug use and outcomes will be extremely helpful as well. To understand how medications impact results, further studies should look for causal links between medication use and exacerbations.
Lastly, Canadian research on COPD definitely offers insightful information, but when extrapolating these results to the United States, one must take into account variations in the health care system, demographics, and regional patterns along with social determinants of health.
– Commentary by Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
Journal CHEST®
By Claire Launois, MD, PhD, and colleagues
It has long been a critique of studies that evaluate the impact of positive airway pressure (PAP) adherence on positive health outcomes that patients who are more adherent to PAP may also be more adherent to other health behaviors that contribute to those positive outcomes, such as incident cardiac events in patients with OSA. An association was found between multiple proxies of the healthy adherer effect and later PAP adherence in patients with OSA, the highest being related to proxies of cardiovascular health. A preceding reduction in health care costs was also found in these patients. These findings may help contribute to interpretation and validation of new studies to help us better understand the impact of PAP treatment of OSA.
– Commentary by Sreelatha Naik, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
CHEST® Critical Care
By Burton H. Shen, MD, and colleagues
Asthma is a common reason for hospital admission. Between 5% and 35% of patients who are admitted due to asthma are also admitted to the ICU during their hospital stay. For adolescents and young adults, there is variability in admission to the PICU vs adult ICU. This study specifically evaluated patients aged 12 to 26 years old and included hospitals with both a PICU and an adult ICU. The results show us that age, rather than specific clinical characteristics, is the strongest predictor for PICU admission. Patients aged 18 years and younger were more likely to be admitted to the PICU. This is an important consideration, as hospital bedspace is often more limited during viral season in pediatric hospitals and PICUs. This information is also important for outpatient asthma providers to consider as they counsel their patients and provide long-term management before and after these hospital stays.
– Commentary by Lisa Ulrich, MD, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
CHEST® Pulmonary
Short-Acting Beta-Agonists, Antibiotics, Oral Corticosteroids, and the Associated Burden of COPD
By Mohit Bhutani, MD, FCCP, and colleagues
This study notably highlights the fact that high frequency use of short-acting beta-agonists, antibiotics, and oral corticosteroids may not directly raise the likelihood of an exacerbation but rather may be a sign of worsening disease or poorly managed COPD.
Future studies should investigate the factors that contribute to patients’ frequent prescription use, such as understanding the underlying causes of their exacerbations and other pertinent factors. Additionally, details about patient adherence, a complete clinical history, and the treatment of any further chronic disorders are pivotal for a more complete picture. Enhanced methods for recognizing mild/moderate and severe exacerbations, including patient-reported outcomes, in order to have a better understanding of the influence on drug use and outcomes will be extremely helpful as well. To understand how medications impact results, further studies should look for causal links between medication use and exacerbations.
Lastly, Canadian research on COPD definitely offers insightful information, but when extrapolating these results to the United States, one must take into account variations in the health care system, demographics, and regional patterns along with social determinants of health.
– Commentary by Humayun Anjum, MD, FCCP, Member of the CHEST Physician Editorial Board
Biomarker use in ARDS resulting from COVID-19 infection
There is renewed interest in the use of immunomodulator therapies in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Beyond COVID-19, studies have also shown corticosteroid therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia.3 However, the overwhelming majority of studies identifying plasma biomarkers that are associated with clinical outcomes in severe lung injury predate the routine use of corticosteroids.4 Two investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital, Jehan W. Alladina, MD, and George A. Alba, MD, performed a study to assess whether plasma biomarkers previously associated with clinical outcomes in ARDS maintained their predictive value in the setting of widespread immunomodulator therapy in the ICU. Drs. Alladina and Alba are physician-scientists and codirectors of the Program for Advancing Critical Care Translational Science at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
In a study published in CHEST®Critical Care earlier this year, they prospectively enrolled patients with ARDS due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from December 31, 2020, to March 31, 2021, at Massachusetts General Hospital.5 Plasma samples were collected within 24 hours of intubation for mechanical ventilation for protein analysis in 69 patients. Baseline demographics included a mean age of 62 plus or minus 15 years and a BMI of 31 plus or minus 8, and 45% were female. The median PaO2 to FiO2 ratio was 174 mm Hg, consistent with moderate ARDS, and the median duration of ventilation was 17 days. The patients had a median modified sequential organ failure assessment score of 8.5, and in-hospital mortality was 44% by 60 days. Notably, all patients in this cohort received steroids during their ICU stay.
Interestingly, the study investigators found no association between clinical outcomes and circulating proteins implicated in inflammation (eg, interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8), epithelial injury (eg, soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products, surfactant protein D), or coagulation (eg, D-dimer, tissue factor). However, four endothelial biomarkers—von Willebrand factor A2 domain; angiopoietin-2; syndecan-1; and neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally downregulated 9 (NEDD9)—were associated with 60-day mortality after adjusting for age, sex, and severity of illness. A sensitivity analysis, in which patients treated with the IL-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (n=4) were excluded, showed similar results.
Of the endothelial proteins, NEDD9 demonstrated the greatest effect size in its association with mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 who were treated with immunomodulators. NEDD9 is a scaffolding protein highly expressed in the pulmonary vascular endothelium, but its role in ARDS is not well known. In pulmonary vascular disease, plasma levels are associated with adverse pulmonary hemodynamics and clinical outcomes. Pulmonary artery endothelial NEDD9 is upregulated by cellular hypoxia and can mediate platelet-endothelial adhesion by interacting with P-selectin on the surface of activated platelets.6 Additionally, there is evidence of increased pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 expression and colocalization with fibrin within pulmonary arteries in lung tissue of patients who died from ARDS due to COVID-19.7 Thus, NEDD9 may be an important mediator of pulmonary vascular dysfunction observed in ARDS and could be a novel biomarker for patient subphenotyping and prognostication of clinical outcomes.
In summary, in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 ARDS uniformly treated with corticosteroids, plasma biomarkers of inflammation, coagulation, and epithelial injury were not associated with clinical outcomes, but endothelial biomarkers remained prognostic. It is biologically plausible that immunomodulators could attenuate the association between inflammatory biomarkers and patient outcomes. The findings of this study highlight the association of endothelial biomarkers with clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 ARDS treated with immunomodulators and warrant prospective validation, especially with the increasing evidence-based use of antiinflammatory therapy in acute lung injury. However, there are several important limitations to consider, including a small sample size from a single institution that precludes any definitive conclusions regarding any negative associations. Moreover, the single time point studied (the day of initiation of mechanical ventilation) and absence of a comparator group do not allow a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of antiinflammatory therapies across the trajectory of disease. Whether the findings are generalizable to all patients with ARDS treated with immunomodulators also remains unknown.
Overall, these data suggest that circulating signatures previously associated with ARDS, particularly those related to systemic inflammation, may have limited prognostic utility in the era of increasing immunomodulator use in critical illness. A deeper understanding of the pathobiology of ARDS, including the complex interplay with systemic immunomodulation, is needed to identify prognostic biomarkers and targeted therapies that improve patient outcomes.
Both authors work in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston.
References
1. Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, et al; RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(8):693-704.
2. Tomazini BM, Maia IS, Cavalcanti AB, et al. Effect of dexamethasone on days alive and ventilator-free in patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1-11.
3. Dequin P-F, Meziani F, Quenot J-P, et al. Hydrocortisone in severe community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(21):1931-1941.
4. Del Valle DM, Kim-Schulze S, Huang H-H, et al. An inflammatory cytokine signature predicts COVID-19 severity and survival. Nat Med. 2020;26(10):1636-1643.
5. Alladina JW, Giacona FL, Haring AM, et al. Circulating biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction associated with ventilatory ratio and mortality in ARDS resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with antiinflammatory therapies. CHEST Crit Care. 2024;2(2):100054.
6. Alba GA, Samokhin AO, Wang R-S, et al. NEDD9 is a novel and modifiable mediator of platelet-endothelial adhesion in the pulmonary circulation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;203(12):1533-1545.
7. Alba GA, Samokhin AO, Wang R-S, et al. Pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 and the prothrombotic pathophenotype of acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Pulm Circ. 2022;12(2):e12071.
There is renewed interest in the use of immunomodulator therapies in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Beyond COVID-19, studies have also shown corticosteroid therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia.3 However, the overwhelming majority of studies identifying plasma biomarkers that are associated with clinical outcomes in severe lung injury predate the routine use of corticosteroids.4 Two investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital, Jehan W. Alladina, MD, and George A. Alba, MD, performed a study to assess whether plasma biomarkers previously associated with clinical outcomes in ARDS maintained their predictive value in the setting of widespread immunomodulator therapy in the ICU. Drs. Alladina and Alba are physician-scientists and codirectors of the Program for Advancing Critical Care Translational Science at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
In a study published in CHEST®Critical Care earlier this year, they prospectively enrolled patients with ARDS due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from December 31, 2020, to March 31, 2021, at Massachusetts General Hospital.5 Plasma samples were collected within 24 hours of intubation for mechanical ventilation for protein analysis in 69 patients. Baseline demographics included a mean age of 62 plus or minus 15 years and a BMI of 31 plus or minus 8, and 45% were female. The median PaO2 to FiO2 ratio was 174 mm Hg, consistent with moderate ARDS, and the median duration of ventilation was 17 days. The patients had a median modified sequential organ failure assessment score of 8.5, and in-hospital mortality was 44% by 60 days. Notably, all patients in this cohort received steroids during their ICU stay.
Interestingly, the study investigators found no association between clinical outcomes and circulating proteins implicated in inflammation (eg, interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8), epithelial injury (eg, soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products, surfactant protein D), or coagulation (eg, D-dimer, tissue factor). However, four endothelial biomarkers—von Willebrand factor A2 domain; angiopoietin-2; syndecan-1; and neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally downregulated 9 (NEDD9)—were associated with 60-day mortality after adjusting for age, sex, and severity of illness. A sensitivity analysis, in which patients treated with the IL-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (n=4) were excluded, showed similar results.
Of the endothelial proteins, NEDD9 demonstrated the greatest effect size in its association with mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 who were treated with immunomodulators. NEDD9 is a scaffolding protein highly expressed in the pulmonary vascular endothelium, but its role in ARDS is not well known. In pulmonary vascular disease, plasma levels are associated with adverse pulmonary hemodynamics and clinical outcomes. Pulmonary artery endothelial NEDD9 is upregulated by cellular hypoxia and can mediate platelet-endothelial adhesion by interacting with P-selectin on the surface of activated platelets.6 Additionally, there is evidence of increased pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 expression and colocalization with fibrin within pulmonary arteries in lung tissue of patients who died from ARDS due to COVID-19.7 Thus, NEDD9 may be an important mediator of pulmonary vascular dysfunction observed in ARDS and could be a novel biomarker for patient subphenotyping and prognostication of clinical outcomes.
In summary, in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 ARDS uniformly treated with corticosteroids, plasma biomarkers of inflammation, coagulation, and epithelial injury were not associated with clinical outcomes, but endothelial biomarkers remained prognostic. It is biologically plausible that immunomodulators could attenuate the association between inflammatory biomarkers and patient outcomes. The findings of this study highlight the association of endothelial biomarkers with clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 ARDS treated with immunomodulators and warrant prospective validation, especially with the increasing evidence-based use of antiinflammatory therapy in acute lung injury. However, there are several important limitations to consider, including a small sample size from a single institution that precludes any definitive conclusions regarding any negative associations. Moreover, the single time point studied (the day of initiation of mechanical ventilation) and absence of a comparator group do not allow a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of antiinflammatory therapies across the trajectory of disease. Whether the findings are generalizable to all patients with ARDS treated with immunomodulators also remains unknown.
Overall, these data suggest that circulating signatures previously associated with ARDS, particularly those related to systemic inflammation, may have limited prognostic utility in the era of increasing immunomodulator use in critical illness. A deeper understanding of the pathobiology of ARDS, including the complex interplay with systemic immunomodulation, is needed to identify prognostic biomarkers and targeted therapies that improve patient outcomes.
Both authors work in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston.
References
1. Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, et al; RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(8):693-704.
2. Tomazini BM, Maia IS, Cavalcanti AB, et al. Effect of dexamethasone on days alive and ventilator-free in patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1-11.
3. Dequin P-F, Meziani F, Quenot J-P, et al. Hydrocortisone in severe community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(21):1931-1941.
4. Del Valle DM, Kim-Schulze S, Huang H-H, et al. An inflammatory cytokine signature predicts COVID-19 severity and survival. Nat Med. 2020;26(10):1636-1643.
5. Alladina JW, Giacona FL, Haring AM, et al. Circulating biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction associated with ventilatory ratio and mortality in ARDS resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with antiinflammatory therapies. CHEST Crit Care. 2024;2(2):100054.
6. Alba GA, Samokhin AO, Wang R-S, et al. NEDD9 is a novel and modifiable mediator of platelet-endothelial adhesion in the pulmonary circulation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;203(12):1533-1545.
7. Alba GA, Samokhin AO, Wang R-S, et al. Pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 and the prothrombotic pathophenotype of acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Pulm Circ. 2022;12(2):e12071.
There is renewed interest in the use of immunomodulator therapies in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.
Beyond COVID-19, studies have also shown corticosteroid therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia.3 However, the overwhelming majority of studies identifying plasma biomarkers that are associated with clinical outcomes in severe lung injury predate the routine use of corticosteroids.4 Two investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital, Jehan W. Alladina, MD, and George A. Alba, MD, performed a study to assess whether plasma biomarkers previously associated with clinical outcomes in ARDS maintained their predictive value in the setting of widespread immunomodulator therapy in the ICU. Drs. Alladina and Alba are physician-scientists and codirectors of the Program for Advancing Critical Care Translational Science at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
In a study published in CHEST®Critical Care earlier this year, they prospectively enrolled patients with ARDS due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from December 31, 2020, to March 31, 2021, at Massachusetts General Hospital.5 Plasma samples were collected within 24 hours of intubation for mechanical ventilation for protein analysis in 69 patients. Baseline demographics included a mean age of 62 plus or minus 15 years and a BMI of 31 plus or minus 8, and 45% were female. The median PaO2 to FiO2 ratio was 174 mm Hg, consistent with moderate ARDS, and the median duration of ventilation was 17 days. The patients had a median modified sequential organ failure assessment score of 8.5, and in-hospital mortality was 44% by 60 days. Notably, all patients in this cohort received steroids during their ICU stay.
Interestingly, the study investigators found no association between clinical outcomes and circulating proteins implicated in inflammation (eg, interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8), epithelial injury (eg, soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products, surfactant protein D), or coagulation (eg, D-dimer, tissue factor). However, four endothelial biomarkers—von Willebrand factor A2 domain; angiopoietin-2; syndecan-1; and neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally downregulated 9 (NEDD9)—were associated with 60-day mortality after adjusting for age, sex, and severity of illness. A sensitivity analysis, in which patients treated with the IL-6 inhibitor tocilizumab (n=4) were excluded, showed similar results.
Of the endothelial proteins, NEDD9 demonstrated the greatest effect size in its association with mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 who were treated with immunomodulators. NEDD9 is a scaffolding protein highly expressed in the pulmonary vascular endothelium, but its role in ARDS is not well known. In pulmonary vascular disease, plasma levels are associated with adverse pulmonary hemodynamics and clinical outcomes. Pulmonary artery endothelial NEDD9 is upregulated by cellular hypoxia and can mediate platelet-endothelial adhesion by interacting with P-selectin on the surface of activated platelets.6 Additionally, there is evidence of increased pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 expression and colocalization with fibrin within pulmonary arteries in lung tissue of patients who died from ARDS due to COVID-19.7 Thus, NEDD9 may be an important mediator of pulmonary vascular dysfunction observed in ARDS and could be a novel biomarker for patient subphenotyping and prognostication of clinical outcomes.
In summary, in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 ARDS uniformly treated with corticosteroids, plasma biomarkers of inflammation, coagulation, and epithelial injury were not associated with clinical outcomes, but endothelial biomarkers remained prognostic. It is biologically plausible that immunomodulators could attenuate the association between inflammatory biomarkers and patient outcomes. The findings of this study highlight the association of endothelial biomarkers with clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 ARDS treated with immunomodulators and warrant prospective validation, especially with the increasing evidence-based use of antiinflammatory therapy in acute lung injury. However, there are several important limitations to consider, including a small sample size from a single institution that precludes any definitive conclusions regarding any negative associations. Moreover, the single time point studied (the day of initiation of mechanical ventilation) and absence of a comparator group do not allow a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of antiinflammatory therapies across the trajectory of disease. Whether the findings are generalizable to all patients with ARDS treated with immunomodulators also remains unknown.
Overall, these data suggest that circulating signatures previously associated with ARDS, particularly those related to systemic inflammation, may have limited prognostic utility in the era of increasing immunomodulator use in critical illness. A deeper understanding of the pathobiology of ARDS, including the complex interplay with systemic immunomodulation, is needed to identify prognostic biomarkers and targeted therapies that improve patient outcomes.
Both authors work in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, in Boston.
References
1. Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, et al; RECOVERY Collaborative Group. Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(8):693-704.
2. Tomazini BM, Maia IS, Cavalcanti AB, et al. Effect of dexamethasone on days alive and ventilator-free in patients with moderate or severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(13):1-11.
3. Dequin P-F, Meziani F, Quenot J-P, et al. Hydrocortisone in severe community-acquired pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(21):1931-1941.
4. Del Valle DM, Kim-Schulze S, Huang H-H, et al. An inflammatory cytokine signature predicts COVID-19 severity and survival. Nat Med. 2020;26(10):1636-1643.
5. Alladina JW, Giacona FL, Haring AM, et al. Circulating biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction associated with ventilatory ratio and mortality in ARDS resulting from SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with antiinflammatory therapies. CHEST Crit Care. 2024;2(2):100054.
6. Alba GA, Samokhin AO, Wang R-S, et al. NEDD9 is a novel and modifiable mediator of platelet-endothelial adhesion in the pulmonary circulation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;203(12):1533-1545.
7. Alba GA, Samokhin AO, Wang R-S, et al. Pulmonary endothelial NEDD9 and the prothrombotic pathophenotype of acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Pulm Circ. 2022;12(2):e12071.