Megan Brooks

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Current guidelines recommend a 5-minute rest period before a blood pressure screening measurement, but that might not be necessary for all patients.

In a prospective crossover study, average differences in blood pressure measurements obtained after 0 or 2 minutes of rest were not significantly different than readings obtained after the recommended 5 minutes of rest in adults with systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg.

“The average differences in BP by rest period were small, and BPs obtained after shorter rest periods were noninferior to those obtained after 5 minutes when SBP is below 140,” Tammy M. Brady, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.

“This suggests shorter rest times, even 0 minutes, may be reasonable for screening when the initial SBP is below 140,” said Brady.

She presented her research at the joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension..
 

A challenging recommendation

The 5-minute rest period is “challenging” to implement in busy clinical settings, Dr. Brady said. The researchers therefore set out to determine the effect of no rest and the effect of a shorter rest period (2 minutes) on blood pressure screening.

They recruited 113 adults (mean age, 55; 64% women, 74% Black) with SBP that ranged from below 115 mm Hg to above 145 mm Hg and with diastolic BP that ranged from below 75 mm Hg to above 105 mm Hg. About one-quarter (28%) had SBP in the stage 2 hypertension range (at least 140 mm Hg).

They obtained four sets of automated BP measurements after 5, 2, or 0 minutes of rest. All participants had their BP measured after a second 5-minute rest period as their last measurement to estimate repeatability.

Overall, there was no significant difference in the average BP obtained at any of the rest periods.

After the first and second 5-minute rest period, BPs were 127.5/74.7 mm Hg and 127.0/75.6 mm Hg, respectively. After 2 and 0 minutes of rest, BPs were 126.8/73.7 mm Hg and 126.5/74.0 mm Hg.

When looking just at adults with SBP below 140 mm Hg, there was no more than an average difference of ±2 mm Hg between BPs obtained at the 5-minute resting periods, compared with the shorter resting periods.

However, in those with SBP below 140 mm Hg, BP values were significantly different (defined as more than ±2 mm Hg) with shorter rest periods, “suggesting that shorter rest periods were in fact inferior to resting for 5 minutes in these patients,” Dr. Brady said.
 

More efficient, economic

“Economics play a significant role in blood pressure screenings, as clinics not as well-funded may find it especially challenging to implement a uniform, 5-minute rest period before testing, which could ultimately reduce the number of patients able to be screened,” Dr. Brady added in a conference statement.

“While our study sample was small, a reasonable approach based on these findings would be to measure blood pressure after minimal to no rest, and then repeat the measurements after 5 minutes only if a patient is found to have elevated blood pressure,” she said.

Weighing in on the results, Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA council on hypertension, said that “reducing the rest period to screen an individual for hypertension may result in faster throughput in the clinic and confer a cost savings.”

“At the present time, in order to maintain the clinic flow, some clinics use a single, often times ‘nonrested’ BP measurement as a screen, reserving the 5-minute rest automated-office BP measurement for patients found to have an elevated screening BP,” noted Dr. Griffin, professor of medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

“Nevertheless, even if limiting the use of automated-office BP to those who fail the initial screening BP, a cost savings would still be realized by reducing the currently recommended 5-minute rest to 2 minutes and have the most impact in very busy, less well-funded clinics,” said Dr. Griffin.

She cautioned, however, that further studies in a larger population will be needed before making a change to current clinical practice guidelines.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Brady and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.

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

Many health care professionals are not following current, evidence-based guidelines to screen for and diagnose hypertension, and appear to have substantial gaps in knowledge, beliefs, and use of recommended practices, results from a large survey suggest.

“One surprising finding was that there was so much trust in the stethoscope, because the automated monitors are a better way to take blood pressure,” lead author Beverly Green, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The results of the survey were presented Sept. 10 at the virtual joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommend out-of-office blood pressure measurements – via ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring – before making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

To gauge provider knowledge, beliefs, and practices related to BP diagnostic tests, the researchers surveyed 282 providers: 102 medical assistants (MA), 28 licensed practical nurses (LPNs), 33 registered nurses (RNs), 86 primary care physicians, and 33 advanced practitioners (APs).

More than three-quarters of providers (79%) felt that BP measured manually with a stethoscope and ABPM were “very or highly” accurate ways to measure BP when making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Most did not think that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate.

Nearly all providers surveyed (96%) reported that they “always or almost always” rely on clinic BP measurements when diagnosing hypertension, but the majority of physicians/APs would prefer using ABPM (61%) if available.

The problem with ABPM, said Dr. Green, is “it’s just not very available or convenient for patients, and a lot of providers think that patients won’t tolerate it.” Yet, without it, there is a risk for misclassification, she said.

Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA Council on Hypertension, said it became “customary to use clinic BP since ABPM was not previously reimbursed for the routine diagnosis of hypertension.

“Now that the payment for ABPM has been expanded, the number of machines at most institutions is not adequate for the need. Consequently, it will take some time to catch up with the current guidelines for diagnosing hypertension,” she said in an interview.

The provider survey by Dr. Green and colleagues also shows slow uptake of updated thresholds for high blood pressure.

Eighty-four percent of physicians/APs and 68% of MA/LPN/RNs said they used a clinic BP threshold of at least 140/90 mm Hg for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Only 3.5% and 9.0%, respectively, reported using the updated threshold of at least 130/80 mm Hg put forth in 2017.

Dr. Griffin said part of this stems from the fact that the survey began before the updated guidelines were released in 2017, “not to mention the fact that some societies have opposed the new threshold of 130/80 mm Hg.”

“I think, with time, the data on morbidity and mortality associated with the goal of 130/80 mm Hg will hopefully convince those who have not yet implemented these new guidelines that it is a safe and effective BP goal,” Dr. Griffin said.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Green and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Many health care professionals are not following current, evidence-based guidelines to screen for and diagnose hypertension, and appear to have substantial gaps in knowledge, beliefs, and use of recommended practices, results from a large survey suggest.

“One surprising finding was that there was so much trust in the stethoscope, because the automated monitors are a better way to take blood pressure,” lead author Beverly Green, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The results of the survey were presented Sept. 10 at the virtual joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommend out-of-office blood pressure measurements – via ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring – before making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

To gauge provider knowledge, beliefs, and practices related to BP diagnostic tests, the researchers surveyed 282 providers: 102 medical assistants (MA), 28 licensed practical nurses (LPNs), 33 registered nurses (RNs), 86 primary care physicians, and 33 advanced practitioners (APs).

More than three-quarters of providers (79%) felt that BP measured manually with a stethoscope and ABPM were “very or highly” accurate ways to measure BP when making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Most did not think that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate.

Nearly all providers surveyed (96%) reported that they “always or almost always” rely on clinic BP measurements when diagnosing hypertension, but the majority of physicians/APs would prefer using ABPM (61%) if available.

The problem with ABPM, said Dr. Green, is “it’s just not very available or convenient for patients, and a lot of providers think that patients won’t tolerate it.” Yet, without it, there is a risk for misclassification, she said.

Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA Council on Hypertension, said it became “customary to use clinic BP since ABPM was not previously reimbursed for the routine diagnosis of hypertension.

“Now that the payment for ABPM has been expanded, the number of machines at most institutions is not adequate for the need. Consequently, it will take some time to catch up with the current guidelines for diagnosing hypertension,” she said in an interview.

The provider survey by Dr. Green and colleagues also shows slow uptake of updated thresholds for high blood pressure.

Eighty-four percent of physicians/APs and 68% of MA/LPN/RNs said they used a clinic BP threshold of at least 140/90 mm Hg for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Only 3.5% and 9.0%, respectively, reported using the updated threshold of at least 130/80 mm Hg put forth in 2017.

Dr. Griffin said part of this stems from the fact that the survey began before the updated guidelines were released in 2017, “not to mention the fact that some societies have opposed the new threshold of 130/80 mm Hg.”

“I think, with time, the data on morbidity and mortality associated with the goal of 130/80 mm Hg will hopefully convince those who have not yet implemented these new guidelines that it is a safe and effective BP goal,” Dr. Griffin said.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Green and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Many health care professionals are not following current, evidence-based guidelines to screen for and diagnose hypertension, and appear to have substantial gaps in knowledge, beliefs, and use of recommended practices, results from a large survey suggest.

“One surprising finding was that there was so much trust in the stethoscope, because the automated monitors are a better way to take blood pressure,” lead author Beverly Green, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The results of the survey were presented Sept. 10 at the virtual joint scientific sessions of the American Heart Association Council on Hypertension, AHA Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and American Society of Hypertension.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology recommend out-of-office blood pressure measurements – via ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring – before making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

To gauge provider knowledge, beliefs, and practices related to BP diagnostic tests, the researchers surveyed 282 providers: 102 medical assistants (MA), 28 licensed practical nurses (LPNs), 33 registered nurses (RNs), 86 primary care physicians, and 33 advanced practitioners (APs).

More than three-quarters of providers (79%) felt that BP measured manually with a stethoscope and ABPM were “very or highly” accurate ways to measure BP when making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Most did not think that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate.

Nearly all providers surveyed (96%) reported that they “always or almost always” rely on clinic BP measurements when diagnosing hypertension, but the majority of physicians/APs would prefer using ABPM (61%) if available.

The problem with ABPM, said Dr. Green, is “it’s just not very available or convenient for patients, and a lot of providers think that patients won’t tolerate it.” Yet, without it, there is a risk for misclassification, she said.

Karen A. Griffin, MD, who chairs the AHA Council on Hypertension, said it became “customary to use clinic BP since ABPM was not previously reimbursed for the routine diagnosis of hypertension.

“Now that the payment for ABPM has been expanded, the number of machines at most institutions is not adequate for the need. Consequently, it will take some time to catch up with the current guidelines for diagnosing hypertension,” she said in an interview.

The provider survey by Dr. Green and colleagues also shows slow uptake of updated thresholds for high blood pressure.

Eighty-four percent of physicians/APs and 68% of MA/LPN/RNs said they used a clinic BP threshold of at least 140/90 mm Hg for making a new diagnosis of hypertension.

Only 3.5% and 9.0%, respectively, reported using the updated threshold of at least 130/80 mm Hg put forth in 2017.

Dr. Griffin said part of this stems from the fact that the survey began before the updated guidelines were released in 2017, “not to mention the fact that some societies have opposed the new threshold of 130/80 mm Hg.”

“I think, with time, the data on morbidity and mortality associated with the goal of 130/80 mm Hg will hopefully convince those who have not yet implemented these new guidelines that it is a safe and effective BP goal,” Dr. Griffin said.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Green and Dr. Griffin have no relevant disclosures.
 

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

Amarin’s hopes of fending off generic competition for its blockbuster high-strength eicosapentaenoic acid product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), have dimmed following a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the company’s ongoing patent litigation.

The court upheld the March ruling by the District Court for the District of Nevada in favor of two generic companies in connection with their abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for the product.

Amarin said it is currently reviewing its legal options and within 30 days expects to file a petition for an en banc review of the current decision by the full panel of 12 active judges at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

“We are extremely disappointed with [the] ruling and plan to vigorously pursue available remedies,” John Thero, Amarin president and chief executive officer, said in a statement.

In 2012, Vascepa became the first and only prescription treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration made up solely of the active ingredient icosapent ethyl, a unique form of eicosapentaenoic acid. It was initially approved for the reduction of very high triglyceride levels (≥500 mg/dL).

In late 2019, the FDA extended the indication to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in people with elevated triglyceride levels and either established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The extended indication was based on results of the landmark REDUCE-IT trial, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events with icosapent ethyl, compared with placebo, in patients with triglyceride levels above 135 mg/dL and who had CV disease (70% of the study population), or who were high-risk primary-prevention patients with diabetes and one additional risk factor (30% of the study population).

According to Amarin, since its launch, Vascepa has been prescribed more than 8 million times.

The company said demand for the product in the United States remains “strong” and indicated that, despite the legal setback, it would continue promotional efforts. The company is also seeking additional regulatory approvals in China, Europe, and additional countries in the Middle East.

“We are particularly excited about the anticipated commercialization opportunities for Vascepa in Europe as we prepare for expected approval and launch in early 2021,” Mr. Thero said.

The company anticipates 10 years of market protection because of regulatory exclusivity in the European Union once approved, and said patent protection could extend into 2039.

Only Vascepa sold in the United States is subject to this litigation and judgment. No generic litigation is pending outside the United States, Amarin said.

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

Amarin’s hopes of fending off generic competition for its blockbuster high-strength eicosapentaenoic acid product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), have dimmed following a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the company’s ongoing patent litigation.

The court upheld the March ruling by the District Court for the District of Nevada in favor of two generic companies in connection with their abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for the product.

Amarin said it is currently reviewing its legal options and within 30 days expects to file a petition for an en banc review of the current decision by the full panel of 12 active judges at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

“We are extremely disappointed with [the] ruling and plan to vigorously pursue available remedies,” John Thero, Amarin president and chief executive officer, said in a statement.

In 2012, Vascepa became the first and only prescription treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration made up solely of the active ingredient icosapent ethyl, a unique form of eicosapentaenoic acid. It was initially approved for the reduction of very high triglyceride levels (≥500 mg/dL).

In late 2019, the FDA extended the indication to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in people with elevated triglyceride levels and either established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The extended indication was based on results of the landmark REDUCE-IT trial, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events with icosapent ethyl, compared with placebo, in patients with triglyceride levels above 135 mg/dL and who had CV disease (70% of the study population), or who were high-risk primary-prevention patients with diabetes and one additional risk factor (30% of the study population).

According to Amarin, since its launch, Vascepa has been prescribed more than 8 million times.

The company said demand for the product in the United States remains “strong” and indicated that, despite the legal setback, it would continue promotional efforts. The company is also seeking additional regulatory approvals in China, Europe, and additional countries in the Middle East.

“We are particularly excited about the anticipated commercialization opportunities for Vascepa in Europe as we prepare for expected approval and launch in early 2021,” Mr. Thero said.

The company anticipates 10 years of market protection because of regulatory exclusivity in the European Union once approved, and said patent protection could extend into 2039.

Only Vascepa sold in the United States is subject to this litigation and judgment. No generic litigation is pending outside the United States, Amarin said.

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

Amarin’s hopes of fending off generic competition for its blockbuster high-strength eicosapentaenoic acid product, icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), have dimmed following a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the company’s ongoing patent litigation.

The court upheld the March ruling by the District Court for the District of Nevada in favor of two generic companies in connection with their abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for the product.

Amarin said it is currently reviewing its legal options and within 30 days expects to file a petition for an en banc review of the current decision by the full panel of 12 active judges at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

“We are extremely disappointed with [the] ruling and plan to vigorously pursue available remedies,” John Thero, Amarin president and chief executive officer, said in a statement.

In 2012, Vascepa became the first and only prescription treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration made up solely of the active ingredient icosapent ethyl, a unique form of eicosapentaenoic acid. It was initially approved for the reduction of very high triglyceride levels (≥500 mg/dL).

In late 2019, the FDA extended the indication to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events in people with elevated triglyceride levels and either established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The extended indication was based on results of the landmark REDUCE-IT trial, which showed a 25% relative risk reduction in major adverse CV events with icosapent ethyl, compared with placebo, in patients with triglyceride levels above 135 mg/dL and who had CV disease (70% of the study population), or who were high-risk primary-prevention patients with diabetes and one additional risk factor (30% of the study population).

According to Amarin, since its launch, Vascepa has been prescribed more than 8 million times.

The company said demand for the product in the United States remains “strong” and indicated that, despite the legal setback, it would continue promotional efforts. The company is also seeking additional regulatory approvals in China, Europe, and additional countries in the Middle East.

“We are particularly excited about the anticipated commercialization opportunities for Vascepa in Europe as we prepare for expected approval and launch in early 2021,” Mr. Thero said.

The company anticipates 10 years of market protection because of regulatory exclusivity in the European Union once approved, and said patent protection could extend into 2039.

Only Vascepa sold in the United States is subject to this litigation and judgment. No generic litigation is pending outside the United States, Amarin said.

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

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

Treatment with a fixed-dose combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol (AMX0035, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals) slows the rate of decline in physical function in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to results of the phase 2/3 CENTAUR study.

Patients with a fast-progressing form of ALS who were treated with AMX0035 “retained higher levels of physical function over 6 months compared with those who received placebo,” reported principal investigator Sabrina Paganoni, MD, PhD, of the Sean M. Healey and AMG Center for ALS at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“This is very hopeful news for people affected by ALS, especially because we were able to see a treatment effect in a relatively short period of time,” Dr. Paganoni said.

The study was published online Sept. 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In this study, AMX0035 demonstrated a “clinically meaningful benefit and a favorable safety profile for people living with ALS,” Josh Cohen, co-CEO, chairman, and cofounder at Amylyx, said in a news release. The company is “working collaboratively and expeditiously with agencies worldwide to bring this potential new treatment option forward.”

“The data ... makes a clear and compelling case that AMX0035 should be made available to people with ALS as soon as possible,” Calaneet Balas, president and CEO of The ALS Association, said in the release.

The CENTAUR trial

Sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol have been found to reduce neuronal death in experimental models. AMX0035 combines 3 g sodium phenylbutyrate and 1 g of taurursodiol.

The CENTAUR trial tested AMX0035 against placebo in 137 ALS patients with symptom onset within the prior 18 months, with 89 patients in the AMX0035 group and 48 in the placebo group. AMX0035 or matching placebo were administered once daily for 3 weeks and then twice daily for a planned duration of 24 weeks.

In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale–Revised (ALSFRS-R) score was −1.24 points per month with AMX0035 and −1.66 points per month with placebo (difference, 0.42 points per month; 95% CI, 0.03 - 0.81; P = .03). After 24 weeks, patients treated with AMX0035 scored on average 2.32 points higher on the ALSFRS-R than their peers on placebo group (P = .03).

“The score, consisting of four subdomains, showed a change that was most prominent for the fine-motor subscale and less apparent for the other subscales,” the investigators said.

Treatment with AMX0035 led to slowing of disease progression in a population in which many participants were receiving riluzole (Tiglutik), edaravone (Radicava) or both, they pointed out.

The secondary outcomes were rate of decline in isometric muscle strength and breathing function; change in plasma phosphorylated axonal neurofilament H subunit (pNF-H) levels; and the time to composite events of death, tracheostomy, permanent ventilation, and hospitalization. These outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Open-label extension ongoing

AMX0035 was generally well tolerated. Nearly all patients in both groups had one or more adverse events. Events occurring at 2% or greater frequency in the AMX0035 group were primarily gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, salivary hypersecretion, and abdominal discomfort). Serious adverse events were more common in the placebo group (19% vs. 12%). The incidence of respiratory serious adverse events was 8% in the placebo group and 3% in the AMX0035 group.

More patients on active treatment than placebo (19% vs. 8%) stopped the trial regimen early owing to adverse events. The most common adverse events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were diarrhea and respiratory failure.

The trial was “too short for us to detect an effect on survival,” Dr. Paganoni said in an interview. Most of the participants who completed the trial elected to enroll in an open-label extension study and receive AMX0035 long-term. “This is important because it will teach us about the impact of AMX0035 on survival,” said Dr. Paganoni.

Interim data from the ongoing open-label extension study are being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal shortly and will be published in the coming months.
 

A cause for hope

“There has been understandable frustration with the slow pace of development of therapy for ALS,” Michael Benatar, MD, PhD, University of Miami, and Michael McDermott, PhD, University of Rochester (N.Y.), said in an accompanying editorial.

“Despite dozens of trials, few pharmacologic agents have emerged that affect functional decline or survival – and all only modestly so. Although the effects of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol are similarly modest, the incremental gains that they provide in the battle against ALS are a cause for hope,” they wrote.

They caution, however, that this study was enriched for patients with more rapidly progressive disease, which “raises questions about generalizability to the broader population of patients with ALS.

“Although the patients who were enrolled in the trial may not be biologically different from the broader population of patients with ALS, the magnitude of therapeutic effect may be smaller in the latter,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott noted.

They said that in light of “residual questions about efficacy and the ability of patients to continue taking the drug,” they agree with the authors’ conclusion that “longer and larger trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sodium phenylbutyrate–taurursodiol in persons with ALS.”

Given these “tantalizing preliminary data,” Dr. Benatar and Dr. McDermott said they look forward to “a confirmatory phase 3 trial.” 

The study was supported by Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, the ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, and the ALS Association. Dr. Paganoni has received grants from Revalesio, Ra Pharma, Biohaven, Clene, and Prilenia. A complete list of disclosures for authors and editorialists is available with the original article.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Nomophobia” – the fear of being without a mobile phone or out of mobile phone contact – is extremely prevalent among college students and is associated with poor sleep habits and fatigue. In a study of more than 300 college students, nearly 9 in 10 (89%) were classified as having moderate to severe nomophobia. Greater levels of nomophobia were significantly linked to daytime sleepiness and more behaviors associated with poor sleep hygiene.

“My undergraduate research team came up with the idea for this study,” said study investigator Jennifer Peszka, PhD, professor of psychology at Hendrix College, Conway, Ark. She explained that her students had been looking at the impact of technology use in the 2 hours before bed, and hypothesized that ‘cell phone addiction’ might play a role in sleep problems.

Incidentally, “that group of students were all pretty high on nomophobia themselves so they were really interested in the outcome,” Dr. Peszka said.

The study findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A likely suspect

The study involved 327 undergraduates (mean age, 19.7 years) recruited from introductory psychology courses and campus newsletters. They completed several questionnaires, including the Nomophobia Questionnaire, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and the Sleep Hygiene Index.

Nomophobia was prevalent, with mild, moderate, and severe nomophobia reported by 10%, 83%, and 7% of students, respectively. Only one student reported no nomophobia at all. Dr. Peszka said the fact that 89% of students had moderate or severe nomophobia is “concerning,” given a 2012 study suggesting that 77% of 18- to 24-year-olds had nomophobia. This phobia “very well may be on a rapid rise,” she lamented.

Greater severity of nomophobia was significantly correlated with greater sleepiness measured by both the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (P < .05) and the Associated Features of Poor Sleep Hygiene daytime sleepiness item (P < .05). More severe nomophobia was also related to decreased motivation (a commonly reported symptom of insufficient sleep) and with more maladaptive sleep hygiene behaviors (including using technology during sleep time, long daytime naps, inconsistent wake and bed times, using bed for nonsleep purposes, uncomfortable bed, and bedtime cognitive rumination).

Prior research has shown that smartphones may lead to compulsive “checking” habits, compulsive usage, increased distress, and potentially addictive behaviors. Active phone use at bedtime has also been implicated in disrupted sleep. Nomophobia is likely to be an important consideration when treating sleep disorders and/or making any sleep hygiene recommendations, Dr. Peszka said.
 

Proliferation of ‘night owls’

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this is a “very timely study with COVID-19. Right now, more than ever, technology is a double-edged sword. I’m a father of three kids and, for now, technology is the only way some kids are going to be socializing and learning.”

Yet a foundation of good sleep hygiene is keeping a nightly sleep routine, said Dr. Dasgupta, who was not involved in the study. “Right now, it seems like all my sleep patients are becoming night owls and sleep time is becoming more and more delayed because there is so much news to keep up with. Also, you may be stressed at night and you may not have the motivation to wake up early in the morning.”

He said it is important to counsel patients to “put technology away at night. That goes for kids and adults.”

Support for the study was provided by Hendrix College Charles Brewer Fund for Psychology. Dr. Peszka and Dr. Dasgupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the interest of public health and safety, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is calling for the elimination of daylight saving time in favor of permanent year-round standard time – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.

“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.

The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
 

Significant health risks

In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.

There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.

“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.

A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.

“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.

Strong support

The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.

Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.

“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.

In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the interest of public health and safety, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is calling for the elimination of daylight saving time in favor of permanent year-round standard time – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.

“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.

The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
 

Significant health risks

In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.

There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.

“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.

A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.

“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.

Strong support

The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.

Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.

“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.

In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the interest of public health and safety, the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) is calling for the elimination of daylight saving time in favor of permanent year-round standard time – a recommendation that has garnered strong support from multiple medical and other high-profile organizations.

“Permanent, year-round standard time is the best choice to most closely match our circadian sleep-wake cycle,” M. Adeel Rishi, MD, lead author of the AASM position statement, said in a news release. “Daylight saving time results in more darkness in the morning and more light in the evening, disrupting the body’s natural rhythm,” said Dr. Rishi, of the department of pulmonology, critical care, and sleep medicine, Mayo Clinic, Eau Claire, Wis., and vice chair of the AASM Public Safety Committee.

The position statement was published Aug. 26 in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine to coincide with the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies .
 

Significant health risks

In the United States, the annual “spring forward” to daylight saving time and “fall back” to standard time is required by law, although under the statute some exceptions are permitted.

There has been intense debate over the last several years about transitioning between standard and daylight saving time. The AASM says there is “an abundance of evidence” to indicate that quick transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of heart attack, stroke, mood disorders, and car crashes.

“Although chronic effects of remaining in daylight saving time year-round have not been well-studied, daylight saving time is less aligned with human circadian biology – which, because of the impacts of the delayed natural light/dark cycle on human activity, could result in circadian misalignment, which has been associated in some studies with increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks,” the authors wrote.

A recent study also showed an increase in medical errors in the week after switching to daylight saving time.

“Because the adoption of permanent standard time would be beneficial for public health and safety, the AASM will be advocating at the federal level for this legislative change,” said AASM President Kannan Ramar, MBBS, MD, with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

It seems that many Americans are in favor of the change. In July, an AASM survey of roughly 2,000 U.S. adults showed that two-thirds support doing away with the seasonal time change. Only 11% opposed it. In addition, the academy’s 2019 survey showed more than half of adults feel extremely, or somewhat, tired after the springing ahead to daylight saving time.

Strong support

The position statement has been endorsed by 19 organizations, including the American Academy of Cardiovascular Sleep Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST), American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National PTA, National Safety Council, Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine, and the Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine.

Weighing in on the issue, Saul Rothenberg, PhD, from the Sleep Center at Greenwich Hospital, Conn., said the literature on daylight saving time has grown over the past 20 years. He said he was ”humbled” by the research that shows that a “relatively small” misalignment of biological and social clocks has a measurable impact on human health and behavior.

“Because misalignment is associated with negative health and performance outcomes, keeping one set of hours year-round is promoted to minimize misalignment and associated consequences,” he added.

In light of this research, the recommendation to dispense with daylight saving time seems “quite reasonable” from a public health perspective. “I am left with a strengthened view on the importance of regular adequate sleep as a way to enhance health, performance, and quality of life,” he added.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Rishi and Dr. Rothenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Shorter sleep duration, more wakefulness, and changes in the sleep cycle brought on by microgravity make it tough for astronauts to get a good night’s sleep while they’re in outer space, a new study shows. In research that has implications for earthlings as well as astronauts, scientists found that the “significant sleep changes induced by the extreme environmental conditions of spaceflight can magnify and help reveal similar, though potentially less noticeable, changes that are induced by the more moderate conditions of Earth.

“Our results support other studies indicating that sleep architecture can adapt to different environments. Also, the sleep deficits that our subjects were facing while working around the clock in a high-pressure environment provide further evidence for the danger of stress and shift-work schedules for humans anywhere,” study investigator Oliver Piltch, of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., said in a release.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Sleep architecture affected

The researchers studied sleep architecture in four cosmonauts and one astronaut before, during, and after missions to the Mir space station. Using the NightCap sleep monitor, they recorded a total of 324 nights of sleep – 112 preflight nights, 83 in-flight nights, and 61 postflight nights.

Despite having the same “sleep opportunity” in space as on earth, the astronauts were on average sleeping an hour less each night during the space mission compared with when on earth before or after their mission (5.7 vs. 6.7 hours; P < .0001). In space, the astronauts also spent significantly more time awake in bed, leading to a 17.7% reduction in sleep efficiency.

Sleep architecture was also affected by spaceflight. In space, the time in non–rapid eye movement (non–REM) and REM sleep decreased by 14.1% and 25.8%, respectively. On average, it took about 90 minutes after falling asleep for astronauts to reach their first episode of REM sleep in space – nearly 1.5 times longer than on earth. “There were marked shifts in sleep architecture compared to baseline, and some of these evolved over the course of the mission,” said Mr. Piltch.

“Our findings were consistent with previous studies that focus on the issue of sleep continuity. We found significant decreases in sleep efficiency during spaceflight despite similar times in bed,” he noted.

Mr. Piltch said it’s important to understand how sleep is affected by spaceflight in order to better equip astronauts for success on long-duration flights, such as a trip to Mars or the Moon. He also pointed to a recent study in the Lancet Neurology that showed that 78% of the international space station crew take hypnotics on 52% of nights in space. “So it doesn’t look like they sleep very well in space,” he said.
 

High-stakes environment

Reached for comment, Camilo A. Ruiz, DO, medical director, Choice Physicians Sleep Center, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said the findings add to the “limited” data currently available on sleep in space and microgravity. “To a certain point, the results of this study could have been expected since sleep continuity and sleep architecture disruption is present during stressful periods of human life or in changes to the sleep rituals we hold dear, such as our beds and quiet bedrooms,” said Dr. Ruiz, who was not involved in the study.

“The potential harm to astronauts from their sleep continuity and deranged sleep architecture is that the decreased alertness, performance, vigilance, and psychomotor skills they exhibit in that high-stakes environment such as space flight can lead to serious accidents that can jeopardize the safety of the crew and vessel,” Dr. Ruiz noted.

“These research areas are on the forefront of space medicine that will allow mankind to lead successful interplanetary missions and colonization of these planets with long-term resident astronauts,” he added.

The study was supported by funding from the Mary Gordon Roberts Fellowship, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the MacArthur Foundation Mind-Body Network, and Healthdyne Technologies. Mr. Piltch and Dr. Ruiz have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SSRIs effectively treat depression following intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but also increase risk for recurrent hemorrhagic stroke, particularly in patients at high risk for repeat ICH, new research indicates.

“Clinicians must exercise judgment when weighing the use of SSRIs for ICH survivors in the high risk category – especially those with multiple ICH events,” study investigator Alessandro Biffi, MD, director, Aging and Brain Health Research (ABHR) Group, Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

The study was published online August 31 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Risks and benefits

Depression is common following stroke. SSRIs are generally considered first-line treatment for post-stroke depression but are associated with increased risk for first ICH, most likely owing to their antithrombotic effects. Less is known about SSRI use and recurrent ICH risk.

To investigate, Biffi and colleagues followed 1,279 adults (mean age, 71.3 years) for a median of 53.2 months (4.5 years) following primary ICH; 602 were women, 1049 were White, 89 Black, 77 Hispanic, and 64 were other race/ethnicity.

During follow-up, 128 adults suffered recurrent ICH (annual rate, 4.2%) and 766 (60%) were diagnosed with depression.

In multivariable analyses, SSRIs were associated with an increased likelihood of post-ICH depression remission (subhazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.09; P = .009).

However, SSRI use was also an independent risk factor for recurrent ICH (SHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59; P = .006).

High SSRI dose was associated with higher ICH recurrence risk (SHR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25), with a larger effect size (comparison P = .02) than low SSRI dose (SHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.55), but there was no difference in depression remission comparing low vs. high SSRI dose.

Among individuals at high risk for recurrent ICH, SSRI use was associated with further increased risk for ICH recurrence (SHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.22 - 2.64) compared with all other survivors of ICH (SHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01-1.42; P = .008 for comparison of effect sizes).

These higher-risk subgroups included carriers of the APOE e2/e4 alleles, patients with lobar ICH, patients with prior ICH, and minority participants.

“Our analyses identified patients for whom the risks are higher, and therefore additional thought is warranted. This approach may in the future lead to personalized/precision medicine approaches to determining whether these patients should receive SSRIs or not,” said Biffi.
 

Experts weigh in

Commenting on the research for Medscape Medical News, Daniel G. Hackam, MD, division of clinical pharmacology, Western University, London, Ont., said the study is “an important contribution to the literature, as there are to date no data on the risk of ICH in prior ICH survivors in relation to SSRI exposure.”

“The bottom line is that I would be very cautious about initiating SSRIs in patients with a history of ICH,” said Hackam, who was not involved with the study.

“There are other nonserotonergic antidepressants that could be used instead, which do not inhibit platelet function. There was still a risk even in the lower-risk ICH survivors. ICH is a highly recurrent disease. We already avoid antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and high dose statins in these patients. I would add SSRI’s to that list, based on this study,” said Hackam.

Also weighing in, Amytis Towfighi, MD, associate professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said this study addresses a “common clinical dilemma: how to manage depression among individuals with ICH, given the high risk of recurrent ICH among ICH survivors and potential for SSRIs to increase that risk. This scenario is common, and a source of debate for practicing clinicians.”

“The authors conducted an elegant study,” said Towfighi, by considering sociodemographic, historical, imaging, and genetic factors.

“One must interpret this study with caution as it is a single-center cohort study. However, it provides the most rigorous information to date regarding the associations between SSRI use and recurrent ICH,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Biffi, Hackam, and Towfighi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Treatment with statins was associated with a reduced risk of a severe or fatal course of COVID-19 by 30%, a meta-analysis of four published studies has shown.

RogerAshford/Thinkstock

In the analysis that included almost 9,000 COVID-19 patients, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 among patients who were users of statins, compared with nonusers (pooled hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94).

Based on the findings, “it may be time we shift our focus to statins as the potential therapeutic options in COVID-19 patients,” authors Syed Shahzad Hasan, PhD, University of Huddersfield (England), and Chia Siang Kow, MPharm, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, said in an interview.

The study was published online August 11 in The American Journal of Cardiology.
 

Moderate- to good-quality data

The analysis included four studies published up to July 27 of this year. Eligible studies included those with a cohort or case-control designs, enrolled patients with confirmed COVID-19, and had data available allowing comparison of the risk of severe illness and/or mortality among statin users versus nonusers in adjusted analyses, the authors noted.

The four studies – one of “moderate” quality and three of “good” quality – included a total of 8,990 COVID-19 patients.

In the pooled analysis, there was a significantly reduced risk for fatal or severe COVID-19 with use of statins, compared with non-use of statins (pooled HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94).

Their findings also “discredited the suggestion of harms with the use of statins in COVID-19 patients,” the authors concluded.

“Since our meta-analysis included a fairly large total number of COVID-19 patients from four studies in which three are large-scale studies that adjusted extensively for multiple potential confounding factors, the findings can be considered reliable,” Dr. Hasan and Mr. Kow wrote in their article.

Based on the results, “moderate- to high-intensity statin therapy is likely to be beneficial” in patients with COVID-19, they said.

However, they cautioned that more data from prospective studies are needed to substantiate the findings and to determine the appropriate regimen for a statin in COVID-19 patients.

Yibin Wang, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, said that “this is a very simple meta-analysis from four published studies which consistently reported a protective or neutral effect of statin usage on mortality or severe complications in COVID-19 patients.”

Although the scope of this meta-analysis was “quite limited, the conclusion was not unexpected, as most of the clinical analysis so far reported supports the benefits or safety of statin usage in COVID-19 patients,” Dr. Wang said in an interview.
 

Nonetheless, questions remain

While there is “almost no dispute” about the safety of continuing statin therapy in COVID-19 patients, it remains to be determined if statin therapy can be implemented as an adjuvant or independent therapy and a part of the standard care for COVID-19 patients regardless of their hyperlipidemia status, said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with Dr. Hasan’s and Mr. Kow’s research.

“While statin usage is associated with several beneficial effects such as anti-inflammation and cytoprotection, these effects are usually observed from long-term usage rather than short-term/acute administration. Therefore, prospective studies and randomized trials should be conducted to test the efficacy of stain usage for COVID-19 patients with mild to severe symptoms,” he noted.

“Considering the excellent record of statins as a safe and cheap drug, it is certainly a worthwhile effort to consider its broad-based usage for COVID-19 in order to lower the overall death and severe complications,” Dr. Wang concluded.

Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, MD, department of internal medicine, AMITA Health Saint Francis Hospital, Evanston, Ill., is first author on one of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

The retrospective, single-center study found slower progression to death associated with atorvastatin in older patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU. 

“Currently, there are hundreds of clinical trials evaluating a wide variety of pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. Unfortunately, these trials take time, and we are getting results in dribs and drabs,” Dr. Rodriguez-Nava said in an interview.

“In the meantime, the best available evidence is observational, and COVID-19 treatment regiments will continue to evolve. Whether atorvastatin is effective against COVID-19 is still under investigation. Nevertheless, clinicians should consider at least continuing them in patients with COVID-19,” he advised.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Hasan, Mr. Kow, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Rodriguez-Nava disclosed no relationships relevant to this research.

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

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent nightmares are independently linked to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), new research shows. In what researchers describe as “surprising” findings, results from a large study of relatively young military veterans showed those who had nightmares two or more times per week had significantly increased risks for hypertension, myocardial infarction, or other heart problems.  

“A diagnosis of PTSD incorporates sleep disturbance as a symptom. Thus, we were surprised to find that nightmares continued to be associated with CVD after controlling not only for PTSD and demographic factors, but also smoking and depression diagnosis,” said Christi Ulmer, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Unclear mechanism

The study included 3,468 veterans (77% male) with a mean age of 38 years who had served one or two tours of duty since Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly one-third (31%) met criteria for PTSD, and 33% self-reported having at least one cardiovascular condition, such as heart problems, hypertension, stroke, and MI.

Nightmare frequency and severity was assessed using the Davidson Trauma Scale. Nightmares were considered frequent if they occurred two or more times per week and moderate to severe if they were at least moderately distressing. About 31% of veterans reported having frequent nightmares, and 35% reported moderately distressing nightmares over the past week.

After adjusting for age, race, and sex, frequent nightmares were associated with hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.78), heart problems (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.11-2.02), and MI (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.18-4.54).

Associations between frequent nightmares and hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.73) and heart problems (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.00-2.05) remained significant after further adjusting for smoking, depression, and PTSD.

“Our cross-sectional findings set the stage for future research examining the possibility that nightmares may confer cardiovascular disease risks beyond those conferred by PTSD diagnosis alone,” Dr. Ulmer said in a news release.

Dr. Ulmer also said that, because the study was based on self-reported data, the findings are “very preliminary.” Before doctors adjust clinical practices, it’s important that our findings be replicated using longitudinal studies, clinically diagnosed medical conditions, and objectively assessed sleep,” she said.

She added that more research is needed to uncover mechanisms explaining these associations and determine if reducing the frequency and severity of nightmares can lead to improved cardiovascular health.
 

Timely research

Reached for comment, Rajkumar (Raj) Dasgupta, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, noted “the correlation between nightmares and heart disease is a timely topic right now with COVID-19 as more people may be having nightmares.”

“If a patient mentions nightmares, I do think it’s important not to just glaze over it, but to talk more about it and document it in the patient record, especially in patients with cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension,” said Dr. Dasgupta, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The research was supported by the Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center and the Department of Veterans Affairs HSR&D ADAPT Center at the Durham VA Health Care System. Dr. Ulmer and Dr. Dasgupta have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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