MDedge Emergency Medicine

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking two to three daily cups of – ground, instant, or decaffeinated – is associated with significant reductions in new cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk, compared with avoiding coffee, a new analysis of the prospective UK Biobank suggests.

Ground and instant coffee, but not decaffeinated coffee, also was associated with reduced risk of new-onset arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation.

Visual_Intermezzo/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“Our study is the first to look at differences in coffee subtypes to tease out important differences which may explain some of the mechanisms through which coffee works,” Peter M. Kistler, MD, of the Alfred Hospital and Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Australia, told this news organization.

“Daily coffee intake should not be discouraged by physicians but rather considered part of a healthy diet,” Dr. Kistler said.

“This study supports that coffee is safe and even potentially beneficial, which is consistent with most of the prior evidence,” Carl “Chip” Lavie, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“We do not prescribe coffee to patients, but for the majority who like coffee, they can be encouraged it is fine to take a few cups daily,” said Dr. Lavie, with the Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute in New Orleans.

The study was published online in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.

 

Clear cardiovascular benefits

A total of 449,563 UK Biobank participants (median age 58 years; 55% women), who were free of arrhythmias or other CVD at baseline, reported in questionnaires their level of daily coffee intake and preferred type of coffee.

During more than 12.5 years of follow-up, 27,809 participants (6.2%) died.

Drinking one to five cups per day of ground or instant coffee (but not decaffeinated coffee) was associated with a significant reduction in incident arrhythmia. The lowest risk was with four to five cups per day for ground coffee (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91; P < .0001) and two to three cups per day for instant coffee (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.92; P < .0001).

Habitual coffee drinking of up to five cups perday was also associated with significant reductions in the risk of incident CVD, when compared with nondrinkers.

Significant reductions in the risk of incident coronary heart disease (CHD) were associated with habitual coffee intake of up to five cups per day, with the lowest risk for CHD observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91; P < .0001).

Coffee consumption at all levels was linked to significant reduction in the risk of congestive cardiac failure (CCF) and ischemic stroke. The lowest risks were observed in those who consumed two to three cups per day, with HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87; P < .0001) for CCF and HR, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90; P < .0001) for ischemic stroke.

Death from any cause was significantly reduced for all coffee subtypes, with the greatest risk reduction seen with two to three cups per day for decaffeinated (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91; P < .0001); ground (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.69-0.78; P < .0001); and instant coffee (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93; P < .0001).

“Coffee consumption is associated with cardiovascular benefits and should not empirically be discontinued in those with underlying heart rhythm disorders or cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Kistler told this news organization.

Plausible mechanisms

There are a number of proposed mechanisms to explain the benefits of coffee on CVD.

“Caffeine has antiarrhythmic properties through adenosine A1 and A2A receptor inhibition, hence the difference in effects of decaf vs. full-strength coffee on heart rhythm disorders,” Dr. Kistler explained.

Coffee has vasodilatory effects and coffee also contains antioxidant polyphenols, which reduce oxidative stress and modulate metabolism.

“The explanation for improved survival with habitual coffee consumption remains unclear,” Dr. Kistler said.

“Putative mechanisms include improved endothelial function, circulating antioxidants, improved insulin sensitivity, and reduced inflammation. Another potential mechanism includes the beneficial effects of coffee on metabolic syndrome,” he said.

“Caffeine has a role in weight loss through inhibition of gut fatty acid absorption and increase in basal metabolic rate. Furthermore, coffee has been associated with a significantly lower incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Kistler added.
 

Direction of relationship unclear

Charlotte Mills, PhD, University of Reading, England, said this study “adds to the body of evidence from observational trials associating moderate coffee consumption with cardioprotection, which looks promising.”

However, with the observational design, it’s unclear “which direction the relationship goes – for example, does coffee make you healthy or do inherently healthier people consume coffee? Randomized controlled trials are needed to fully understand the relationship between coffee and health before recommendations can be made,” Dr. Mills told the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.

Annette Creedon, PhD, nutrition scientist with the British Nutrition Foundation, said it’s possible that respondents over- or underestimated the amount of coffee that they were consuming at the start of the study when they self-reported their intake.

“It is therefore difficult to determine whether the outcomes can be directly associated with the behaviors in coffee consumption reported at the start of the study,” she told the Science Media Centre.

The study had no funding. Dr. Kistler has received funding from Abbott Medical for consultancy and speaking engagements and fellowship support from Biosense Webster. Dr. Lavie has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Mills has worked in collaboration with Nestle on research relating to coffee and health funded by UKRI. Dr. Creedon has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prompt diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is essential to reduce mortality, and improving education of primary care providers can help, suggests a new white paper.

The nonspecific nature of the symptoms of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) especially in early stages, and the relative rarity of IPF compared with other conditions that have similar symptoms, may contribute to a delay in diagnosis in the primary care setting, wrote Daniel F. Dilling, MD, of Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues in Chest: Clinical Perspectives (Dilling et al. State of Practice: Factors Driving Diagnostic Delays in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Chest. 2022).

“We have learned over and over again through research, and also through talking with our own patients with IPF, that there is often a long lag between the first signs of the disease and a diagnosis of IPF,” corresponding author Dr. Dilling said in an interview.

“Even some pulmonary specialists can be uncertain about how to approach the diagnosis when a CT scan or other test first suggests the possibility; this can cost a patient precious time, as being on drug therapy earlier can result in preservation of lung function,” he said. “By sounding the alarm bell with this paper, we hope to promote awareness and education/training within the primary care community as well as the pulmonary community, and also to make all of them aware of the possibility of referral to specialty ILD [interstitial lung disease] centers when desired and possible,” he added.  

The researchers conducted a pair of online surveys to inform the development of improving education on IPF among primary care providers.

In the white paper, which can be accessed online, the authors reported results of the surveys. One included 100 general pulmonologists and the other included 306 primary care physicians (156 practiced family physicians and 150 practiced general internal medicine). The data were collected between April 11, 2022, and May 16, 2022. Participants were asked to respond to a patient case scenario of a 55-year-old woman with nonspecific symptoms such as shortness of breath on moderate exertion, cough, exhaustion, and trouble sleeping.

The PCPs were most likely to evaluate the patient for a cardiac condition (46%), 25% would evaluate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and 23% for asthma. More than half (58%) ranked progressive fibrosing ILD as one of their bottom two diagnoses.

A total of 87% of PCPs said they would begin a diagnostic workup to evaluate symptoms if the patient had no preexisting respiratory disease, compared with 61% for patients with a respiratory diagnosis.

Although 93% of PCPs cited a chest x-ray as part of the initial patient workup, fewer than half said they would order an echocardiogram, spirometry, or pulmonary function test (PFT), and 11% said they would include diffusion capacity testing in the initial workup.

In addition, PCPs were less likely to ask patients about issues that might prompt an IPF diagnosis, such as exposures to agents through work, hobbies, the environment, or comorbidities.

In the pulmonology survey, more than 75% of respondents cited patient history, high-resolution tomography scan, serologic testing, and review for autoimmune disease symptoms as first steps in a diagnostic response to patients with suspected IPF.
 

Differences between PCPs’ and pulmonolgists’ responses

Both PCPs and pulmonologists responded to several questions to assess knowledge and opinion gaps related to IPF. Overall, pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to cite both imaging and testing issues and waiting 6-8 weeks after symptom onset before imaging as contributing factors to diagnostic delays.

PCPs more often expressed beliefs that delayed diagnosis had little impact on a patient with IPF, and that the treatments may be worse than the disease.

Dr. Dilling said he was not surprised by the survey findings, as similar clues about the underdiagnosis of IPF have surfaced in prior studies.

“We need to get the word out to primary care physicians, to pulmonary physicians, and even to the public, that idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other forms of interstitial lung disease are out there and prevalent, and that making the right diagnosis in a timely way can lead to better outcomes for patients,” he said.

The take-home message for primary care is to think outside the COPD box, said Dr. Dilling. “Just because someone has shortness of breath or cough and used to smoke does not automatically mean that they have COPD,” he emphasized. “Listen carefully for crackles (rales) on exam. Get spirometry or PFTs before you secure the diagnosis of COPD, or else you will be missing all of your cases of pulmonary fibrosis; think of pulmonary fibrosis and use imaging to help guide your diagnosis,” he said.

The authors suggested several education goals for PCPs, including establishing the importance of early evaluation, outlining the correct approach to a patient workup, encouraging prompt referral, and empowering PCPs as part of the team approach to IPF patients’ care. For pulmonologists, only 11% of those surveyed said they were aware of the latest developments in antifibrotic research, and education efforts might include information about drug pipelines and clinical trials, as well as technology.

Looking ahead, “We need to better understand how to find the pulmonary fibrosis in the community,” Dr. Dilling said. This understanding may come in part from greater education and awareness, he noted. However, eventually there may be ways to enhance the reading of PFTs and of CT scans through artificial intelligence technologies that would not only prompt clinicians to recognize what they are seeing, but would prompt them to refer and send the patient on the correct diagnostic path as soon as possible, he added.
 

Key message: Include ILD in differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough

Advances in diagnostics and therapies for interstitial lung disease can take time to be absorbed and adopted, and patients with ILD and pulmonologists caring for ILD, specifically IPF, continue to report delays in diagnosis and therapy, said Krishna Thavarajah, MD, a pulmonologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., in an interview.

The current study findings of the time to diagnosis and the approach to patient workups echo her own clinical experience, Dr. Thavarajah said. “There is a delay in IPF diagnosis as physicians look to more common diagnoses, such as cardiac disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior to pursuit of additional workup, and the attitude toward treatment has, in some ways, lagged behind advances in therapy, including timing and feasibility of therapy for IPF,” she said.

The key message for primary care physicians is to include ILD in the differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough, especially if the initial cardiac and pulmonary test (meaning at least a chest x-ray and pulmonary function tests, including a diffusion capacity) are not pointing to an alternative cause within 3 months of presentation, Dr. Thavarajah said.

Once IPF is diagnosed, primary care clinicians should know that there are FDA-approved therapies that improve survival, said Dr. Thavarajah. “There are identifiable and treatable comorbid conditions,” she added. “The statement of ‘time lost is lung lost’ sums up the care of an IPF patient; partnerships between primary care clinicians, pulmonologists, and referral centers can provide the patient multiple levels of support with quality-of-life interventions, treatments, and also clinical trials, delivered by a team of providers,” she said. 
In the wake of the current study, more research is needed with outcome studies regarding educational interventions targeting primary care and pulmonologists on appropriate workup, timing of workup, and current therapy for IPF patients, she added.

The white paper received no outside funding. The authors and Dr. Thavarajah had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Prompt diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is essential to reduce mortality, and improving education of primary care providers can help, suggests a new white paper.

The nonspecific nature of the symptoms of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) especially in early stages, and the relative rarity of IPF compared with other conditions that have similar symptoms, may contribute to a delay in diagnosis in the primary care setting, wrote Daniel F. Dilling, MD, of Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues in Chest: Clinical Perspectives (Dilling et al. State of Practice: Factors Driving Diagnostic Delays in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Chest. 2022).

“We have learned over and over again through research, and also through talking with our own patients with IPF, that there is often a long lag between the first signs of the disease and a diagnosis of IPF,” corresponding author Dr. Dilling said in an interview.

“Even some pulmonary specialists can be uncertain about how to approach the diagnosis when a CT scan or other test first suggests the possibility; this can cost a patient precious time, as being on drug therapy earlier can result in preservation of lung function,” he said. “By sounding the alarm bell with this paper, we hope to promote awareness and education/training within the primary care community as well as the pulmonary community, and also to make all of them aware of the possibility of referral to specialty ILD [interstitial lung disease] centers when desired and possible,” he added.  

The researchers conducted a pair of online surveys to inform the development of improving education on IPF among primary care providers.

In the white paper, which can be accessed online, the authors reported results of the surveys. One included 100 general pulmonologists and the other included 306 primary care physicians (156 practiced family physicians and 150 practiced general internal medicine). The data were collected between April 11, 2022, and May 16, 2022. Participants were asked to respond to a patient case scenario of a 55-year-old woman with nonspecific symptoms such as shortness of breath on moderate exertion, cough, exhaustion, and trouble sleeping.

The PCPs were most likely to evaluate the patient for a cardiac condition (46%), 25% would evaluate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and 23% for asthma. More than half (58%) ranked progressive fibrosing ILD as one of their bottom two diagnoses.

A total of 87% of PCPs said they would begin a diagnostic workup to evaluate symptoms if the patient had no preexisting respiratory disease, compared with 61% for patients with a respiratory diagnosis.

Although 93% of PCPs cited a chest x-ray as part of the initial patient workup, fewer than half said they would order an echocardiogram, spirometry, or pulmonary function test (PFT), and 11% said they would include diffusion capacity testing in the initial workup.

In addition, PCPs were less likely to ask patients about issues that might prompt an IPF diagnosis, such as exposures to agents through work, hobbies, the environment, or comorbidities.

In the pulmonology survey, more than 75% of respondents cited patient history, high-resolution tomography scan, serologic testing, and review for autoimmune disease symptoms as first steps in a diagnostic response to patients with suspected IPF.
 

Differences between PCPs’ and pulmonolgists’ responses

Both PCPs and pulmonologists responded to several questions to assess knowledge and opinion gaps related to IPF. Overall, pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to cite both imaging and testing issues and waiting 6-8 weeks after symptom onset before imaging as contributing factors to diagnostic delays.

PCPs more often expressed beliefs that delayed diagnosis had little impact on a patient with IPF, and that the treatments may be worse than the disease.

Dr. Dilling said he was not surprised by the survey findings, as similar clues about the underdiagnosis of IPF have surfaced in prior studies.

“We need to get the word out to primary care physicians, to pulmonary physicians, and even to the public, that idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other forms of interstitial lung disease are out there and prevalent, and that making the right diagnosis in a timely way can lead to better outcomes for patients,” he said.

The take-home message for primary care is to think outside the COPD box, said Dr. Dilling. “Just because someone has shortness of breath or cough and used to smoke does not automatically mean that they have COPD,” he emphasized. “Listen carefully for crackles (rales) on exam. Get spirometry or PFTs before you secure the diagnosis of COPD, or else you will be missing all of your cases of pulmonary fibrosis; think of pulmonary fibrosis and use imaging to help guide your diagnosis,” he said.

The authors suggested several education goals for PCPs, including establishing the importance of early evaluation, outlining the correct approach to a patient workup, encouraging prompt referral, and empowering PCPs as part of the team approach to IPF patients’ care. For pulmonologists, only 11% of those surveyed said they were aware of the latest developments in antifibrotic research, and education efforts might include information about drug pipelines and clinical trials, as well as technology.

Looking ahead, “We need to better understand how to find the pulmonary fibrosis in the community,” Dr. Dilling said. This understanding may come in part from greater education and awareness, he noted. However, eventually there may be ways to enhance the reading of PFTs and of CT scans through artificial intelligence technologies that would not only prompt clinicians to recognize what they are seeing, but would prompt them to refer and send the patient on the correct diagnostic path as soon as possible, he added.
 

Key message: Include ILD in differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough

Advances in diagnostics and therapies for interstitial lung disease can take time to be absorbed and adopted, and patients with ILD and pulmonologists caring for ILD, specifically IPF, continue to report delays in diagnosis and therapy, said Krishna Thavarajah, MD, a pulmonologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., in an interview.

The current study findings of the time to diagnosis and the approach to patient workups echo her own clinical experience, Dr. Thavarajah said. “There is a delay in IPF diagnosis as physicians look to more common diagnoses, such as cardiac disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior to pursuit of additional workup, and the attitude toward treatment has, in some ways, lagged behind advances in therapy, including timing and feasibility of therapy for IPF,” she said.

The key message for primary care physicians is to include ILD in the differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough, especially if the initial cardiac and pulmonary test (meaning at least a chest x-ray and pulmonary function tests, including a diffusion capacity) are not pointing to an alternative cause within 3 months of presentation, Dr. Thavarajah said.

Once IPF is diagnosed, primary care clinicians should know that there are FDA-approved therapies that improve survival, said Dr. Thavarajah. “There are identifiable and treatable comorbid conditions,” she added. “The statement of ‘time lost is lung lost’ sums up the care of an IPF patient; partnerships between primary care clinicians, pulmonologists, and referral centers can provide the patient multiple levels of support with quality-of-life interventions, treatments, and also clinical trials, delivered by a team of providers,” she said. 
In the wake of the current study, more research is needed with outcome studies regarding educational interventions targeting primary care and pulmonologists on appropriate workup, timing of workup, and current therapy for IPF patients, she added.

The white paper received no outside funding. The authors and Dr. Thavarajah had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Prompt diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is essential to reduce mortality, and improving education of primary care providers can help, suggests a new white paper.

The nonspecific nature of the symptoms of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) especially in early stages, and the relative rarity of IPF compared with other conditions that have similar symptoms, may contribute to a delay in diagnosis in the primary care setting, wrote Daniel F. Dilling, MD, of Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., and colleagues in Chest: Clinical Perspectives (Dilling et al. State of Practice: Factors Driving Diagnostic Delays in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Chest. 2022).

“We have learned over and over again through research, and also through talking with our own patients with IPF, that there is often a long lag between the first signs of the disease and a diagnosis of IPF,” corresponding author Dr. Dilling said in an interview.

“Even some pulmonary specialists can be uncertain about how to approach the diagnosis when a CT scan or other test first suggests the possibility; this can cost a patient precious time, as being on drug therapy earlier can result in preservation of lung function,” he said. “By sounding the alarm bell with this paper, we hope to promote awareness and education/training within the primary care community as well as the pulmonary community, and also to make all of them aware of the possibility of referral to specialty ILD [interstitial lung disease] centers when desired and possible,” he added.  

The researchers conducted a pair of online surveys to inform the development of improving education on IPF among primary care providers.

In the white paper, which can be accessed online, the authors reported results of the surveys. One included 100 general pulmonologists and the other included 306 primary care physicians (156 practiced family physicians and 150 practiced general internal medicine). The data were collected between April 11, 2022, and May 16, 2022. Participants were asked to respond to a patient case scenario of a 55-year-old woman with nonspecific symptoms such as shortness of breath on moderate exertion, cough, exhaustion, and trouble sleeping.

The PCPs were most likely to evaluate the patient for a cardiac condition (46%), 25% would evaluate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and 23% for asthma. More than half (58%) ranked progressive fibrosing ILD as one of their bottom two diagnoses.

A total of 87% of PCPs said they would begin a diagnostic workup to evaluate symptoms if the patient had no preexisting respiratory disease, compared with 61% for patients with a respiratory diagnosis.

Although 93% of PCPs cited a chest x-ray as part of the initial patient workup, fewer than half said they would order an echocardiogram, spirometry, or pulmonary function test (PFT), and 11% said they would include diffusion capacity testing in the initial workup.

In addition, PCPs were less likely to ask patients about issues that might prompt an IPF diagnosis, such as exposures to agents through work, hobbies, the environment, or comorbidities.

In the pulmonology survey, more than 75% of respondents cited patient history, high-resolution tomography scan, serologic testing, and review for autoimmune disease symptoms as first steps in a diagnostic response to patients with suspected IPF.
 

Differences between PCPs’ and pulmonolgists’ responses

Both PCPs and pulmonologists responded to several questions to assess knowledge and opinion gaps related to IPF. Overall, pulmonologists were more likely than PCPs to cite both imaging and testing issues and waiting 6-8 weeks after symptom onset before imaging as contributing factors to diagnostic delays.

PCPs more often expressed beliefs that delayed diagnosis had little impact on a patient with IPF, and that the treatments may be worse than the disease.

Dr. Dilling said he was not surprised by the survey findings, as similar clues about the underdiagnosis of IPF have surfaced in prior studies.

“We need to get the word out to primary care physicians, to pulmonary physicians, and even to the public, that idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and other forms of interstitial lung disease are out there and prevalent, and that making the right diagnosis in a timely way can lead to better outcomes for patients,” he said.

The take-home message for primary care is to think outside the COPD box, said Dr. Dilling. “Just because someone has shortness of breath or cough and used to smoke does not automatically mean that they have COPD,” he emphasized. “Listen carefully for crackles (rales) on exam. Get spirometry or PFTs before you secure the diagnosis of COPD, or else you will be missing all of your cases of pulmonary fibrosis; think of pulmonary fibrosis and use imaging to help guide your diagnosis,” he said.

The authors suggested several education goals for PCPs, including establishing the importance of early evaluation, outlining the correct approach to a patient workup, encouraging prompt referral, and empowering PCPs as part of the team approach to IPF patients’ care. For pulmonologists, only 11% of those surveyed said they were aware of the latest developments in antifibrotic research, and education efforts might include information about drug pipelines and clinical trials, as well as technology.

Looking ahead, “We need to better understand how to find the pulmonary fibrosis in the community,” Dr. Dilling said. This understanding may come in part from greater education and awareness, he noted. However, eventually there may be ways to enhance the reading of PFTs and of CT scans through artificial intelligence technologies that would not only prompt clinicians to recognize what they are seeing, but would prompt them to refer and send the patient on the correct diagnostic path as soon as possible, he added.
 

Key message: Include ILD in differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough

Advances in diagnostics and therapies for interstitial lung disease can take time to be absorbed and adopted, and patients with ILD and pulmonologists caring for ILD, specifically IPF, continue to report delays in diagnosis and therapy, said Krishna Thavarajah, MD, a pulmonologist at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich., in an interview.

The current study findings of the time to diagnosis and the approach to patient workups echo her own clinical experience, Dr. Thavarajah said. “There is a delay in IPF diagnosis as physicians look to more common diagnoses, such as cardiac disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, prior to pursuit of additional workup, and the attitude toward treatment has, in some ways, lagged behind advances in therapy, including timing and feasibility of therapy for IPF,” she said.

The key message for primary care physicians is to include ILD in the differential diagnosis of patients with shortness of breath and/or cough, especially if the initial cardiac and pulmonary test (meaning at least a chest x-ray and pulmonary function tests, including a diffusion capacity) are not pointing to an alternative cause within 3 months of presentation, Dr. Thavarajah said.

Once IPF is diagnosed, primary care clinicians should know that there are FDA-approved therapies that improve survival, said Dr. Thavarajah. “There are identifiable and treatable comorbid conditions,” she added. “The statement of ‘time lost is lung lost’ sums up the care of an IPF patient; partnerships between primary care clinicians, pulmonologists, and referral centers can provide the patient multiple levels of support with quality-of-life interventions, treatments, and also clinical trials, delivered by a team of providers,” she said. 
In the wake of the current study, more research is needed with outcome studies regarding educational interventions targeting primary care and pulmonologists on appropriate workup, timing of workup, and current therapy for IPF patients, she added.

The white paper received no outside funding. The authors and Dr. Thavarajah had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

All atopic diseases, as well as environmental and parental factors, appear to be linked with hand eczema (HE), a longitudinal study from Finland has shown.

“In this population-based study, all atopic diseases, not only atopic dermatitis, were found as individual risk factors for HE. In addition, female gender, obesity and mold exposure increased the risk of HE,” wrote Marjut Koskelo, MD, and her colleagues at the University of Oulu in Finland. Their report was published in Contact Dermatitis.

“Parental allergy was also a risk factor of offspring’s HE. Moderate or high physical activity as well as owning a dog appeared as protective factors of HE. No association was found between other lifestyle factors and HE,” they added.

Hand eczema is one of the most common skin disorders and is the most common occupational skin disease, the authors wrote. Many risk factors, including atopic dermatitis, are known to be linked with HE, but whether various other factors might also be linked has not been well studied.

The research team investigated the link between HE and atopic diseases, parental factors, environmental factors (exposure to mold, keeping animals), and lifestyle factors (physical activity, obesity, tobacco and alcohol use).

They analyzed data of people who took part in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 Study. The data, collected since 1965, includes details about 12,055 mothers in northern Finland who were expected to deliver babies in 1966, and their 12,058 live-born children. The children have been followed over the years with questionnaires and clinical examinations, and their parents have been followed by national registers and medical reports.

For the 46-year follow-up, 6,830 respondents aged 45-46 years, roughly half of them women, completed a 132-question form covering physical health, lifestyle, environmental factors, socioeconomic status, and history of hand eczema and other atopic diseases.

In the statistical analysis, the researchers adjusted for atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, education level, body mass index, maternal BMI, parental allergy, physical activity, living on a farm, and mold exposure and symptoms.

Of the 900 respondents who reported having had HE, 592 (65.8%) were women and 308 (34.2%) were men (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-2.0).
 

Various factors linked with hand eczema risk

The authors found the following:

• Atopic diseases and HE were linked: atopic dermatitis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.66; 95% CI, 8.03-11.66), asthma (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.71), and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56). Sex did not affect the link between atopic diseases and HE.
• Respondents who reported visible mold or mold odor in their apartments had higher risk for HE than did those without a history of mold exposure (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61).
• Obesity was linked with HE (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.05-22.8), but smoking status, alcohol intake, and education level were not statistically significant risk factors for HE.
• Participants who reported moderate or high physical activity had lower risk for HE (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94; and OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91, respectively) than those who were less active.
• Parental allergy increased risk for HE (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.70-2.30); as maternal age, BMI, and menarche age increased, so did the risk for the child’s HE, but the increases were not statistically significant; and no significant links were found between maternal tobacco smoking, parental asthma, birth weight, parity, gestational age, and HE.
• Dog owners had less risk for HE than did people without a dog (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97); links between cat or farm animal owners and HE were not significant.

“There is a strong association between hand eczema and atopic diseases,” Maya Jonas, MD, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, told this news organization.

“When evaluating patients with hand eczema, it is important to ask if they have a history of atopic dermatitis, asthma, or allergic rhinitis,” said Dr. Jonas, who was not involved in the study.

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, was surprised by the inverse link between physical activity and HE. 

“What struck me as interesting is the inverse association between hand eczema and physical activity, that greater physical activity will decrease the risk for hand eczema,” she said in an interview. “It’s an interesting finding that’s worth exploring.

“Dermatologists have also speculated about the association with the female gender, because women are more likely to be in situations that involve frequent hand washing or in occupations, such as hairdressing, that involve known irritants and allergens,” added Dr. Baron, who was not involved in the study.

The main weakness, she noted, is the reliance on self-reported diagnosis. “Hand eczema is a common condition, but the etiologies of reported hand eczema may vary.

“Being cognizant of these associations can help us prescribe appropriate medications and advise patients about how they can avoid exposures that will aggravate their condition,” Dr. Baron advised.

The authors recommend further related studies.

The authors, Dr. Jonas, and Dr. Baron report no relevant financial relationships. The study was not funded.

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

All atopic diseases, as well as environmental and parental factors, appear to be linked with hand eczema (HE), a longitudinal study from Finland has shown.

“In this population-based study, all atopic diseases, not only atopic dermatitis, were found as individual risk factors for HE. In addition, female gender, obesity and mold exposure increased the risk of HE,” wrote Marjut Koskelo, MD, and her colleagues at the University of Oulu in Finland. Their report was published in Contact Dermatitis.

“Parental allergy was also a risk factor of offspring’s HE. Moderate or high physical activity as well as owning a dog appeared as protective factors of HE. No association was found between other lifestyle factors and HE,” they added.

Hand eczema is one of the most common skin disorders and is the most common occupational skin disease, the authors wrote. Many risk factors, including atopic dermatitis, are known to be linked with HE, but whether various other factors might also be linked has not been well studied.

The research team investigated the link between HE and atopic diseases, parental factors, environmental factors (exposure to mold, keeping animals), and lifestyle factors (physical activity, obesity, tobacco and alcohol use).

They analyzed data of people who took part in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 Study. The data, collected since 1965, includes details about 12,055 mothers in northern Finland who were expected to deliver babies in 1966, and their 12,058 live-born children. The children have been followed over the years with questionnaires and clinical examinations, and their parents have been followed by national registers and medical reports.

For the 46-year follow-up, 6,830 respondents aged 45-46 years, roughly half of them women, completed a 132-question form covering physical health, lifestyle, environmental factors, socioeconomic status, and history of hand eczema and other atopic diseases.

In the statistical analysis, the researchers adjusted for atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, education level, body mass index, maternal BMI, parental allergy, physical activity, living on a farm, and mold exposure and symptoms.

Of the 900 respondents who reported having had HE, 592 (65.8%) were women and 308 (34.2%) were men (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-2.0).
 

Various factors linked with hand eczema risk

The authors found the following:

• Atopic diseases and HE were linked: atopic dermatitis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.66; 95% CI, 8.03-11.66), asthma (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.71), and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56). Sex did not affect the link between atopic diseases and HE.
• Respondents who reported visible mold or mold odor in their apartments had higher risk for HE than did those without a history of mold exposure (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61).
• Obesity was linked with HE (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.05-22.8), but smoking status, alcohol intake, and education level were not statistically significant risk factors for HE.
• Participants who reported moderate or high physical activity had lower risk for HE (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94; and OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91, respectively) than those who were less active.
• Parental allergy increased risk for HE (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.70-2.30); as maternal age, BMI, and menarche age increased, so did the risk for the child’s HE, but the increases were not statistically significant; and no significant links were found between maternal tobacco smoking, parental asthma, birth weight, parity, gestational age, and HE.
• Dog owners had less risk for HE than did people without a dog (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97); links between cat or farm animal owners and HE were not significant.

“There is a strong association between hand eczema and atopic diseases,” Maya Jonas, MD, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, told this news organization.

“When evaluating patients with hand eczema, it is important to ask if they have a history of atopic dermatitis, asthma, or allergic rhinitis,” said Dr. Jonas, who was not involved in the study.

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, was surprised by the inverse link between physical activity and HE. 

“What struck me as interesting is the inverse association between hand eczema and physical activity, that greater physical activity will decrease the risk for hand eczema,” she said in an interview. “It’s an interesting finding that’s worth exploring.

“Dermatologists have also speculated about the association with the female gender, because women are more likely to be in situations that involve frequent hand washing or in occupations, such as hairdressing, that involve known irritants and allergens,” added Dr. Baron, who was not involved in the study.

The main weakness, she noted, is the reliance on self-reported diagnosis. “Hand eczema is a common condition, but the etiologies of reported hand eczema may vary.

“Being cognizant of these associations can help us prescribe appropriate medications and advise patients about how they can avoid exposures that will aggravate their condition,” Dr. Baron advised.

The authors recommend further related studies.

The authors, Dr. Jonas, and Dr. Baron report no relevant financial relationships. The study was not funded.

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

All atopic diseases, as well as environmental and parental factors, appear to be linked with hand eczema (HE), a longitudinal study from Finland has shown.

“In this population-based study, all atopic diseases, not only atopic dermatitis, were found as individual risk factors for HE. In addition, female gender, obesity and mold exposure increased the risk of HE,” wrote Marjut Koskelo, MD, and her colleagues at the University of Oulu in Finland. Their report was published in Contact Dermatitis.

“Parental allergy was also a risk factor of offspring’s HE. Moderate or high physical activity as well as owning a dog appeared as protective factors of HE. No association was found between other lifestyle factors and HE,” they added.

Hand eczema is one of the most common skin disorders and is the most common occupational skin disease, the authors wrote. Many risk factors, including atopic dermatitis, are known to be linked with HE, but whether various other factors might also be linked has not been well studied.

The research team investigated the link between HE and atopic diseases, parental factors, environmental factors (exposure to mold, keeping animals), and lifestyle factors (physical activity, obesity, tobacco and alcohol use).

They analyzed data of people who took part in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 Study. The data, collected since 1965, includes details about 12,055 mothers in northern Finland who were expected to deliver babies in 1966, and their 12,058 live-born children. The children have been followed over the years with questionnaires and clinical examinations, and their parents have been followed by national registers and medical reports.

For the 46-year follow-up, 6,830 respondents aged 45-46 years, roughly half of them women, completed a 132-question form covering physical health, lifestyle, environmental factors, socioeconomic status, and history of hand eczema and other atopic diseases.

In the statistical analysis, the researchers adjusted for atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, education level, body mass index, maternal BMI, parental allergy, physical activity, living on a farm, and mold exposure and symptoms.

Of the 900 respondents who reported having had HE, 592 (65.8%) were women and 308 (34.2%) were men (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-2.0).
 

Various factors linked with hand eczema risk

The authors found the following:

• Atopic diseases and HE were linked: atopic dermatitis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.66; 95% CI, 8.03-11.66), asthma (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.12-1.71), and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (aOR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56). Sex did not affect the link between atopic diseases and HE.
• Respondents who reported visible mold or mold odor in their apartments had higher risk for HE than did those without a history of mold exposure (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.61).
• Obesity was linked with HE (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.05-22.8), but smoking status, alcohol intake, and education level were not statistically significant risk factors for HE.
• Participants who reported moderate or high physical activity had lower risk for HE (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.94; and OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91, respectively) than those who were less active.
• Parental allergy increased risk for HE (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.70-2.30); as maternal age, BMI, and menarche age increased, so did the risk for the child’s HE, but the increases were not statistically significant; and no significant links were found between maternal tobacco smoking, parental asthma, birth weight, parity, gestational age, and HE.
• Dog owners had less risk for HE than did people without a dog (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97); links between cat or farm animal owners and HE were not significant.

“There is a strong association between hand eczema and atopic diseases,” Maya Jonas, MD, clinical assistant professor of dermatology at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, told this news organization.

“When evaluating patients with hand eczema, it is important to ask if they have a history of atopic dermatitis, asthma, or allergic rhinitis,” said Dr. Jonas, who was not involved in the study.

Elma Baron, MD, professor and director, Skin Study Center, department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, was surprised by the inverse link between physical activity and HE. 

“What struck me as interesting is the inverse association between hand eczema and physical activity, that greater physical activity will decrease the risk for hand eczema,” she said in an interview. “It’s an interesting finding that’s worth exploring.

“Dermatologists have also speculated about the association with the female gender, because women are more likely to be in situations that involve frequent hand washing or in occupations, such as hairdressing, that involve known irritants and allergens,” added Dr. Baron, who was not involved in the study.

The main weakness, she noted, is the reliance on self-reported diagnosis. “Hand eczema is a common condition, but the etiologies of reported hand eczema may vary.

“Being cognizant of these associations can help us prescribe appropriate medications and advise patients about how they can avoid exposures that will aggravate their condition,” Dr. Baron advised.

The authors recommend further related studies.

The authors, Dr. Jonas, and Dr. Baron report no relevant financial relationships. The study was not funded.

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

STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.

The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.

The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.

“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
 

One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s

The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.

According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.

“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.

By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
 

Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood

Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.

“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”

“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.

And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”

The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.   

The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.

The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.

The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.

“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
 

One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s

The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.

According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.

“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.

By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
 

Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood

Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.

“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”

“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.

And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”

The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.   

The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

STOCKHOLM – The number of people living with type 1 diabetes worldwide is expected to double by 2040, with most new cases among adults living in low- and middle-income countries, new modeling data suggest.

The forecast, developed from available data collected in the newly established open-source Type 1 Diabetes Index, provides estimates for type 1 diabetes prevalence, incidence, associated mortality, and life expectancy for 201 countries for 2021.

The model also projects estimates for prevalent cases in 2040. It is the first type 1 diabetes dataset to account for the lack of prevalence because of premature mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

“The worldwide prevalence of type 1 diabetes is substantial and growing. Improved surveillance – particularly in adults who make up most of the population living with type 1 diabetes – is essential to enable improvements to care and outcomes. There is an opportunity to save millions of lives in the coming decades by raising the standard of care (including ensuring universal access to insulin and other essential supplies) and increasing awareness of the signs and symptoms of type 1 diabetes to enable a 100% rate of diagnosis in all countries,” the authors write.

“This work spells out the need for early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and timely access to quality care,” said Chantal Mathieu, MD, at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes annual meeting.
 

One in five deaths from type 1 diabetes in under 25s

The new findings were published in Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology by Gabriel A. Gregory, MD, of Life for a Child Program, New South Wales, Australia, and colleagues. The T1D Index Project database was published Sept. 21, 2022.

According to the model, about 8.4 million people were living with type 1 diabetes in 2021, with one-fifth from low- and middle-income countries. An additional 3.7 million died prematurely and would have been added to that count had they lived. One in five of all deaths caused by type 1 diabetes in 2021 is estimated to have occurred in people younger than age 25 years because of nondiagnosis.

“It is unacceptable that, in 2022, some 35,000 people worldwide are dying undiagnosed within a year of onset of symptoms. There also continues to be a huge disparity in life expectancy for people with type 1 diabetes, hitting those in the poorest countries hardest,” noted Dr. Mathieu, who is senior vice-president of EASD and an endocrinologist based at KU Leuven, Belgium.

By 2040, the model predicts that between 13.5 million and 17.4 million people will be living with the condition, with the largest relative increase from 2021 in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The majority of incident and prevalent cases of type 1 diabetes are in adults, with an estimated 62% of 510,000 new diagnoses worldwide in 2021 occurring in people aged 20 years and older.
 

Type 1 diabetes is not predominantly a disease of childhood

Dr. Mathieu also noted that the data dispute the long-held view of type 1 diabetes as a predominantly pediatric condition. Indeed, worldwide, the median age for a person living with type 1 diabetes is 37 years.

“While type 1 diabetes is often referred to as ‘child-onset’ diabetes, this important study shows that only around one in five living with the condition are aged 20 years or younger, two-thirds are aged 20-64 years, and a further one in five are aged 65 years or older.”

“This condition does not stop at age 18 years – the children become adults, and the adults become elderly. All countries must examine and strengthen their diagnosis and care pathways for people of all ages living with type 1 diabetes,” Dr. Mathieu emphasized.

And in an accompanying editorial, Serena Jingchuan Guo, MD, PhD, and Hui Shao, MD, PhD, point out that most studies that estimate diabetes burden have focused on type 2 diabetes, noting, “type 1 diabetes faces the challenges of misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, high risk of complications, and premature mortality.”

The insulin affordability issue is central, point out Dr. Guo and Dr. Shao of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, department of pharmaceutical evaluation and policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville.

“Countries need to strengthen the price regulation and reimbursement policy for insulin while building subsidy programs to ensure insulin access and to cope with the growing demand for insulin. Meanwhile, optimizing the insulin supply chain between manufacturers and patients while seeking alternative treatment options (for example, biosimilar products) will also improve the current situation,” they conclude.   

The study was funded by JDRF, of which four coauthors are employees. The editorialists have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A look at the top cardiovascular disease (CVD) diagnoses in U.S. emergency departments (EDs) suggests that many heart-related emergencies are due to poorly controlled high blood pressure.

In a study of more than 20 million ED visits, about one-third of CVD-related ED visits in the United States were for hypertension-related conditions.

Overall, 13% of ED visits, representing more than 2.7 million individuals, were for essential hypertension.

Nationwide sample

The researchers studied more than 20.6 million ED encounters in adults with a primary CVD diagnosis using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample between 2016 and 2018.

In the sample, 49% were women, and the median age was 67 years. Men had poorer overall baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but women had higher rates of obesity, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. The majority had Medicare or Medicaid insurance.

In women, essential hypertension was the most common reason for an ED visit (16%), followed by hypertensive heart or kidney disease (14%) and atrial fibrillation (AF)/flutter (10%).

In men, the top three reasons were hypertensive heart or kidney disease (15%), essential hypertension (11%), and acute myocardial infarction (AMI, 11%).

On presentation, women were significantly more likely to have essential hypertension, hypertensive crisis, AF/flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolism, or ischemic stroke, while men were more likely to have AMI, or cardiac arrest.

“Previous studies have shown sex differences in patterns of CVD among hospitalized patients,” Dr. Mamas noted. “However, examining CVD encounters in the ED provides a more complete picture of the cardiovascular healthcare needs of men and women, as it captures encounters prior to hospitalization.”

He noted that previous studies of CVD emergency visits are limited to suspected MI visits. “Therefore, this analysis of 15 CVD conditions helps to better understand the full spectrum of acute CVD needs, including sex disparities in hospitalization and risk of death,” Dr. Mamas said.
 

Sex differences in outcomes

The study found that outcomes from the emergency CVD visits were slightly different for men and women.

Overall, women were less likely than were men to die (3.3% vs. 4.3%) or be hospitalized (49.1% vs. 52.3%) after an ED visit for CVD. The difference may be due to women’s generally lower-risk diagnoses, Dr. Mamas said, but there could be an underestimation of deaths in women.

In logistic regression models adjusted for baseline covariates, women with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) had a higher risk of being admitted to hospital or dying compared with men with ICH.

Men were more likely to die if they presented with hypertensive heart or kidney disease, AF/flutter, AMI or cardiac arrest, the researchers found. 

“We did not track deaths outside of the hospital setting,” Dr. Mamas pointed out. Given past evidence that women are more likely to be inappropriately discharged from the ED, and strong evidence for the systemic undertreatment of women, further study is warranted to track outcomes beyond the ED visit,” he added.

The researchers called for further research into understanding the underlying factors driving the differences in CVD patterns and outcomes between men and women.

Reached for comment, Maryann McLaughlin, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, said: “Hypertension is a silent killer” and this study “reiterates that people need to get their blood pressure checked more regularly.

“In the very least, if they do present to the hospital as not feeling well or whatever it is, and they are identified as having high blood pressure, that’s an important opportunity to really teach them about hypertension and have them follow-up with it,” Dr. McLaughlin told this news organization. 

The study was supported by Health Data Research UK. Dr. Keele and Dr. McLaughlin have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.

“While melatonin can be useful in treating certain sleep-wake disorders, like jet lag, there is much less evidence it can help healthy children or adults fall asleep faster,” Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, MBBS, vice chair of the AASM public safety committee, said in a news release.
 

Spike in poisoning calls

Research previously published in JAMA suggests that the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With this increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related emergency department visits for children.

Federal data show that the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021.

More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay, and 287 children required intensive care.

The AASM notes that next to multivitamins, melatonin is the second most popular “natural” product parents give to their children.

Melatonin is widely available over the counter. It’s marketed as a sleep aid, but there is little evidence that taking it as a supplement is effective in treating insomnia in healthy children, the AASM cautions.

Because it is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a dietary supplement, melatonin receives less oversight. Research shows that the melatonin content in supplements can vary widely, the AASM points out.

In one study, amounts of melatonin ranged from less than one-half to more than four times the amounts stated on the labels. The greatest variability in melatonin content was in chewable tablets, which are most likely to be used for children.

“The availability of melatonin as gummies or chewable tablets makes it more tempting to give to children and more likely for them to overdose,” said Dr. Rishi, a pulmonology, sleep medicine, and critical care specialist at Indiana University Health Physicians, Indianapolis.

“Parents should talk directly with their child’s health care professional before giving their children melatonin products,” he added.
 

Keep out of reach

The AASM advises that melatonin be managed as any other medication and that it be kept out of reach of children.

Before giving melatonin or any supplement to their children, parents should discuss this decision with a pediatric health care professional.

If use of melatonin is warranted, health care professionals can recommend the appropriate dose and timing in addressing the sleep problem, and they can ensure that the melatonin product that is being used has a USP verified mark.

“Instead of turning to melatonin, parents should encourage children to develop good sleep habits, like setting a regular bedtime and wake time, having a bedtime routine, and limiting screen time as bedtime approaches,” Dr. Rishi said.

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

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.

“While melatonin can be useful in treating certain sleep-wake disorders, like jet lag, there is much less evidence it can help healthy children or adults fall asleep faster,” Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, MBBS, vice chair of the AASM public safety committee, said in a news release.
 

Spike in poisoning calls

Research previously published in JAMA suggests that the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With this increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related emergency department visits for children.

Federal data show that the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021.

More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay, and 287 children required intensive care.

The AASM notes that next to multivitamins, melatonin is the second most popular “natural” product parents give to their children.

Melatonin is widely available over the counter. It’s marketed as a sleep aid, but there is little evidence that taking it as a supplement is effective in treating insomnia in healthy children, the AASM cautions.

Because it is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a dietary supplement, melatonin receives less oversight. Research shows that the melatonin content in supplements can vary widely, the AASM points out.

In one study, amounts of melatonin ranged from less than one-half to more than four times the amounts stated on the labels. The greatest variability in melatonin content was in chewable tablets, which are most likely to be used for children.

“The availability of melatonin as gummies or chewable tablets makes it more tempting to give to children and more likely for them to overdose,” said Dr. Rishi, a pulmonology, sleep medicine, and critical care specialist at Indiana University Health Physicians, Indianapolis.

“Parents should talk directly with their child’s health care professional before giving their children melatonin products,” he added.
 

Keep out of reach

The AASM advises that melatonin be managed as any other medication and that it be kept out of reach of children.

Before giving melatonin or any supplement to their children, parents should discuss this decision with a pediatric health care professional.

If use of melatonin is warranted, health care professionals can recommend the appropriate dose and timing in addressing the sleep problem, and they can ensure that the melatonin product that is being used has a USP verified mark.

“Instead of turning to melatonin, parents should encourage children to develop good sleep habits, like setting a regular bedtime and wake time, having a bedtime routine, and limiting screen time as bedtime approaches,” Dr. Rishi said.

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

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine has issued a health advisory encouraging parents to talk to a health care professional before giving melatonin or any supplement to children.

“While melatonin can be useful in treating certain sleep-wake disorders, like jet lag, there is much less evidence it can help healthy children or adults fall asleep faster,” Muhammad Adeel Rishi, MD, MBBS, vice chair of the AASM public safety committee, said in a news release.
 

Spike in poisoning calls

Research previously published in JAMA suggests that the use of melatonin has increased over the past 2 decades among people of all ages.

With this increased use has come a spike in reports of melatonin overdose, calls to poison control centers, and related emergency department visits for children.

Federal data show that the number of U.S. children who unintentionally ingested melatonin supplements jumped 530% from 2012 to 2021.

More than 4,000 of the reported ingestions led to a hospital stay, and 287 children required intensive care.

The AASM notes that next to multivitamins, melatonin is the second most popular “natural” product parents give to their children.

Melatonin is widely available over the counter. It’s marketed as a sleep aid, but there is little evidence that taking it as a supplement is effective in treating insomnia in healthy children, the AASM cautions.

Because it is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a dietary supplement, melatonin receives less oversight. Research shows that the melatonin content in supplements can vary widely, the AASM points out.

In one study, amounts of melatonin ranged from less than one-half to more than four times the amounts stated on the labels. The greatest variability in melatonin content was in chewable tablets, which are most likely to be used for children.

“The availability of melatonin as gummies or chewable tablets makes it more tempting to give to children and more likely for them to overdose,” said Dr. Rishi, a pulmonology, sleep medicine, and critical care specialist at Indiana University Health Physicians, Indianapolis.

“Parents should talk directly with their child’s health care professional before giving their children melatonin products,” he added.
 

Keep out of reach

The AASM advises that melatonin be managed as any other medication and that it be kept out of reach of children.

Before giving melatonin or any supplement to their children, parents should discuss this decision with a pediatric health care professional.

If use of melatonin is warranted, health care professionals can recommend the appropriate dose and timing in addressing the sleep problem, and they can ensure that the melatonin product that is being used has a USP verified mark.

“Instead of turning to melatonin, parents should encourage children to develop good sleep habits, like setting a regular bedtime and wake time, having a bedtime routine, and limiting screen time as bedtime approaches,” Dr. Rishi said.

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

Drug overdose deaths rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, but more so among Blacks and Native American and Alaska Native people.

The results underscore the “urgency of expanding prevention, treatment, and harm reduction interventions tailored to specific populations, especially American Indian or Alaska Native and Black populations, given long-standing structural racism and inequities in accessing these services,” the researchers note.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Urgent need’ for education

From February 2020 to August 2021, drug overdose deaths in the United States rose 37%, and these deaths were largely due to synthetic opioids other than methadone – primarily fentanyl or analogs – and methamphetamine.

Yet, data are lacking regarding racial and ethnic disparities in overdose death rates.

To investigate, Beth Han, MD, PhD, with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues analyzed federal drug overdose death data for individuals aged 15-34 and 35-64 from March 2018 to August 2021.

Among individuals aged 15-34, from March 2018 to August 2021, overdose death rates involving any drug, fentanyl, and methamphetamine with or without fentanyl, increased overall.

For the 6 months from March to August 2021, non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native men had the highest rates overall involving any drug, fentanyl, and methamphetamine without fentanyl, with rates of 42.0, 30.2, and 6.0 per 100,000, respectively.

The highest rates (per 100,000) of drug overdose deaths involving methamphetamine with fentanyl were for Native American or Alaska Native men (9.2) and women (8.0) and non-Hispanic White men (6.7).

Among people aged 35-64, from March to August 2021, overall drug overdose rates (per 100,000) were highest among non-Hispanic Black men (61.2) and Native American or Alaska Native men (60.0), and fentanyl-involved death rates were highest among Black men (43.3).

Rates involving methamphetamine with fentanyl were highest among Native American or Alaska Native men (12.6) and women (9.4) and White men (9.5).

Rates involving methamphetamine without fentanyl were highest among Native American or Alaska Native men (22.9).

The researchers note the findings highlight the “urgent need” for education on dangers of methamphetamine and fentanyl.

Expanding access to naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and treatments for substance use disorders to disproportionately affected populations is also critical to help curb disparities in drug overdose deaths, they add.

Limitations of the study are that overdose deaths may be underestimated because of the use of 2021 provisional data and that racial or ethnic identification may be misclassified, especially for Native American or Alaska Native people.

This study was sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Drug overdose deaths rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, but more so among Blacks and Native American and Alaska Native people.

The results underscore the “urgency of expanding prevention, treatment, and harm reduction interventions tailored to specific populations, especially American Indian or Alaska Native and Black populations, given long-standing structural racism and inequities in accessing these services,” the researchers note.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Urgent need’ for education

From February 2020 to August 2021, drug overdose deaths in the United States rose 37%, and these deaths were largely due to synthetic opioids other than methadone – primarily fentanyl or analogs – and methamphetamine.

Yet, data are lacking regarding racial and ethnic disparities in overdose death rates.

To investigate, Beth Han, MD, PhD, with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues analyzed federal drug overdose death data for individuals aged 15-34 and 35-64 from March 2018 to August 2021.

Among individuals aged 15-34, from March 2018 to August 2021, overdose death rates involving any drug, fentanyl, and methamphetamine with or without fentanyl, increased overall.

For the 6 months from March to August 2021, non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native men had the highest rates overall involving any drug, fentanyl, and methamphetamine without fentanyl, with rates of 42.0, 30.2, and 6.0 per 100,000, respectively.

The highest rates (per 100,000) of drug overdose deaths involving methamphetamine with fentanyl were for Native American or Alaska Native men (9.2) and women (8.0) and non-Hispanic White men (6.7).

Among people aged 35-64, from March to August 2021, overall drug overdose rates (per 100,000) were highest among non-Hispanic Black men (61.2) and Native American or Alaska Native men (60.0), and fentanyl-involved death rates were highest among Black men (43.3).

Rates involving methamphetamine with fentanyl were highest among Native American or Alaska Native men (12.6) and women (9.4) and White men (9.5).

Rates involving methamphetamine without fentanyl were highest among Native American or Alaska Native men (22.9).

The researchers note the findings highlight the “urgent need” for education on dangers of methamphetamine and fentanyl.

Expanding access to naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and treatments for substance use disorders to disproportionately affected populations is also critical to help curb disparities in drug overdose deaths, they add.

Limitations of the study are that overdose deaths may be underestimated because of the use of 2021 provisional data and that racial or ethnic identification may be misclassified, especially for Native American or Alaska Native people.

This study was sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Drug overdose deaths rose significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, but more so among Blacks and Native American and Alaska Native people.

The results underscore the “urgency of expanding prevention, treatment, and harm reduction interventions tailored to specific populations, especially American Indian or Alaska Native and Black populations, given long-standing structural racism and inequities in accessing these services,” the researchers note.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Urgent need’ for education

From February 2020 to August 2021, drug overdose deaths in the United States rose 37%, and these deaths were largely due to synthetic opioids other than methadone – primarily fentanyl or analogs – and methamphetamine.

Yet, data are lacking regarding racial and ethnic disparities in overdose death rates.

To investigate, Beth Han, MD, PhD, with the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues analyzed federal drug overdose death data for individuals aged 15-34 and 35-64 from March 2018 to August 2021.

Among individuals aged 15-34, from March 2018 to August 2021, overdose death rates involving any drug, fentanyl, and methamphetamine with or without fentanyl, increased overall.

For the 6 months from March to August 2021, non-Hispanic Native American or Alaska Native men had the highest rates overall involving any drug, fentanyl, and methamphetamine without fentanyl, with rates of 42.0, 30.2, and 6.0 per 100,000, respectively.

The highest rates (per 100,000) of drug overdose deaths involving methamphetamine with fentanyl were for Native American or Alaska Native men (9.2) and women (8.0) and non-Hispanic White men (6.7).

Among people aged 35-64, from March to August 2021, overall drug overdose rates (per 100,000) were highest among non-Hispanic Black men (61.2) and Native American or Alaska Native men (60.0), and fentanyl-involved death rates were highest among Black men (43.3).

Rates involving methamphetamine with fentanyl were highest among Native American or Alaska Native men (12.6) and women (9.4) and White men (9.5).

Rates involving methamphetamine without fentanyl were highest among Native American or Alaska Native men (22.9).

The researchers note the findings highlight the “urgent need” for education on dangers of methamphetamine and fentanyl.

Expanding access to naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and treatments for substance use disorders to disproportionately affected populations is also critical to help curb disparities in drug overdose deaths, they add.

Limitations of the study are that overdose deaths may be underestimated because of the use of 2021 provisional data and that racial or ethnic identification may be misclassified, especially for Native American or Alaska Native people.

This study was sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are 70% more likely to use benzodiazepines and “Z-drugs” than are the general population, a large study from Canada suggests. 

Mood/anxiety disorders and sleep disorders are common in patients with IBD, but few studies have looked at use of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (such as zolpidem, zaleplon, and eszopiclone) in this patient population.

The results are “concerning, and especially as the IBD population ages, these drugs are associated with health risks, including something as simple as falls,” first author Charles Bernstein, MD, of the IBD clinical and research centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.

“Clinicians need to find better strategies to deal with anxiety disorders and sleep disorders in the IBD population,” Dr. Bernstein said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

High burden of use

Using administrative data from Manitoba, Dr. Bernstein and colleagues identified 5,741 patients with IBD (2,381 with Crohn’s disease and 3,360 with ulcerative colitis) and matched them (1:5) to 28,661 population controls without IBD.

Over a 20-year period (1997-2017), there was a “high burden” of benzodiazepine and Z-drug use in the IBD population. In 2017, roughly 20% of Manitobans with IBD were using benzodiazepines, and 20% were using Z-drugs, the study team reports.

The benzodiazepine use rate (per 1,000) was 28.06 in the IBD cohort vs. 16.83 in the non-IBD population (adjusted rate ratio, 1.67). The use rate for Z-drugs was 21.07 in the IBD cohort vs. 11.26 in the non-IBD population (adjusted RR, 1.87).

Benzodiazepine use declined from 1997 to 2016, but it remained at least 50% higher in patients with IBD than in the general population over this period, the researchers found. The rate of Z-drug use also was higher in the IBD population than in the general population but remained stable over the 20-year study period.

Regardless of age, men and women had similarly high use rates for benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, and joint use of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs. The highest incidence rates for joint benzodiazepine and Z-drug use were in young adults (age 18-44 years), and these rates were similar among men and women.

Patients with IBD and a mood/anxiety disorder also were more likely to use benzodiazepines and Z-drugs and to be continuous users than were those without a mood/anxiety disorder.
 

Mental health and IBD go hand in hand

“The results are not very surprising, but they highlight the importance of mental health and mood disturbances in patients with IBD,” Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“It is important for treating physicians to be aware of the important mental health implications of IBD diagnosis and disease activity, to screen patients for these disturbances, and to institute early effective interventions,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Also offering perspective, Laurie Keefer, PhD, academic health psychologist and director of psychobehavioral research within the division of gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said that she is “concerned but not surprised” by the results of this study.

“One in three patients with IBD meets criteria for an anxiety disorder,” Dr. Keefer told this news organization.

And with the ongoing mental health crisis and shortage of mental health providers, “gastroenterologists are, unfortunately, in the position where they may have to manage these issues,” she said.

Dr. Keefer noted that when patients are first diagnosed with IBD, they will likely be on prednisone, and “an antidote” for the side effects of prednisone are benzodiazepines and sleeping medications because prednisone itself causes insomnia. “However, that’s really just a band-aid,” she said.

A major concern, said Dr. Keefer, is that young men and women who are diagnosed with IBD in their 20s may start using these drugs and become reliant on them.

“People do build up a tolerance to these drugs, so they need more and more to receive the same effect,” she said.

A better approach is to figure out why patients are so anxious and teach them skills to manage their anxiety and sleep problems so that they’re not dependent on these drugs, Dr. Keefer said.

“There are behavioral strategies that can help. These are harder to do, and they’re not a quick fix. However, they are skills you can learn in your 20s and so when you have an IBD flare at 50, you have the skills to deal with it,” she said.

“We just have to be a little more proactive in really encouraging patients to learn disease management skills,” Dr. Keefer added.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Crohn’s and Colitis Canada. Dr. Bernstein has disclosed relationships with AbbVie Canada, Amgen Canada, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, Roche Canada, Janssen Canada, Sandoz Canada, Takeda and Takeda Canada, Pfizer Canada, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, and Medtronic Canada. Dr. Ananthakrishnan and Dr. Keefer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are 70% more likely to use benzodiazepines and “Z-drugs” than are the general population, a large study from Canada suggests. 

Mood/anxiety disorders and sleep disorders are common in patients with IBD, but few studies have looked at use of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (such as zolpidem, zaleplon, and eszopiclone) in this patient population.

The results are “concerning, and especially as the IBD population ages, these drugs are associated with health risks, including something as simple as falls,” first author Charles Bernstein, MD, of the IBD clinical and research centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.

“Clinicians need to find better strategies to deal with anxiety disorders and sleep disorders in the IBD population,” Dr. Bernstein said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

High burden of use

Using administrative data from Manitoba, Dr. Bernstein and colleagues identified 5,741 patients with IBD (2,381 with Crohn’s disease and 3,360 with ulcerative colitis) and matched them (1:5) to 28,661 population controls without IBD.

Over a 20-year period (1997-2017), there was a “high burden” of benzodiazepine and Z-drug use in the IBD population. In 2017, roughly 20% of Manitobans with IBD were using benzodiazepines, and 20% were using Z-drugs, the study team reports.

The benzodiazepine use rate (per 1,000) was 28.06 in the IBD cohort vs. 16.83 in the non-IBD population (adjusted rate ratio, 1.67). The use rate for Z-drugs was 21.07 in the IBD cohort vs. 11.26 in the non-IBD population (adjusted RR, 1.87).

Benzodiazepine use declined from 1997 to 2016, but it remained at least 50% higher in patients with IBD than in the general population over this period, the researchers found. The rate of Z-drug use also was higher in the IBD population than in the general population but remained stable over the 20-year study period.

Regardless of age, men and women had similarly high use rates for benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, and joint use of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs. The highest incidence rates for joint benzodiazepine and Z-drug use were in young adults (age 18-44 years), and these rates were similar among men and women.

Patients with IBD and a mood/anxiety disorder also were more likely to use benzodiazepines and Z-drugs and to be continuous users than were those without a mood/anxiety disorder.
 

Mental health and IBD go hand in hand

“The results are not very surprising, but they highlight the importance of mental health and mood disturbances in patients with IBD,” Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“It is important for treating physicians to be aware of the important mental health implications of IBD diagnosis and disease activity, to screen patients for these disturbances, and to institute early effective interventions,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Also offering perspective, Laurie Keefer, PhD, academic health psychologist and director of psychobehavioral research within the division of gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said that she is “concerned but not surprised” by the results of this study.

“One in three patients with IBD meets criteria for an anxiety disorder,” Dr. Keefer told this news organization.

And with the ongoing mental health crisis and shortage of mental health providers, “gastroenterologists are, unfortunately, in the position where they may have to manage these issues,” she said.

Dr. Keefer noted that when patients are first diagnosed with IBD, they will likely be on prednisone, and “an antidote” for the side effects of prednisone are benzodiazepines and sleeping medications because prednisone itself causes insomnia. “However, that’s really just a band-aid,” she said.

A major concern, said Dr. Keefer, is that young men and women who are diagnosed with IBD in their 20s may start using these drugs and become reliant on them.

“People do build up a tolerance to these drugs, so they need more and more to receive the same effect,” she said.

A better approach is to figure out why patients are so anxious and teach them skills to manage their anxiety and sleep problems so that they’re not dependent on these drugs, Dr. Keefer said.

“There are behavioral strategies that can help. These are harder to do, and they’re not a quick fix. However, they are skills you can learn in your 20s and so when you have an IBD flare at 50, you have the skills to deal with it,” she said.

“We just have to be a little more proactive in really encouraging patients to learn disease management skills,” Dr. Keefer added.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Crohn’s and Colitis Canada. Dr. Bernstein has disclosed relationships with AbbVie Canada, Amgen Canada, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, Roche Canada, Janssen Canada, Sandoz Canada, Takeda and Takeda Canada, Pfizer Canada, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, and Medtronic Canada. Dr. Ananthakrishnan and Dr. Keefer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are 70% more likely to use benzodiazepines and “Z-drugs” than are the general population, a large study from Canada suggests. 

Mood/anxiety disorders and sleep disorders are common in patients with IBD, but few studies have looked at use of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs (such as zolpidem, zaleplon, and eszopiclone) in this patient population.

The results are “concerning, and especially as the IBD population ages, these drugs are associated with health risks, including something as simple as falls,” first author Charles Bernstein, MD, of the IBD clinical and research centre, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, told this news organization.

“Clinicians need to find better strategies to deal with anxiety disorders and sleep disorders in the IBD population,” Dr. Bernstein said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

High burden of use

Using administrative data from Manitoba, Dr. Bernstein and colleagues identified 5,741 patients with IBD (2,381 with Crohn’s disease and 3,360 with ulcerative colitis) and matched them (1:5) to 28,661 population controls without IBD.

Over a 20-year period (1997-2017), there was a “high burden” of benzodiazepine and Z-drug use in the IBD population. In 2017, roughly 20% of Manitobans with IBD were using benzodiazepines, and 20% were using Z-drugs, the study team reports.

The benzodiazepine use rate (per 1,000) was 28.06 in the IBD cohort vs. 16.83 in the non-IBD population (adjusted rate ratio, 1.67). The use rate for Z-drugs was 21.07 in the IBD cohort vs. 11.26 in the non-IBD population (adjusted RR, 1.87).

Benzodiazepine use declined from 1997 to 2016, but it remained at least 50% higher in patients with IBD than in the general population over this period, the researchers found. The rate of Z-drug use also was higher in the IBD population than in the general population but remained stable over the 20-year study period.

Regardless of age, men and women had similarly high use rates for benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, and joint use of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs. The highest incidence rates for joint benzodiazepine and Z-drug use were in young adults (age 18-44 years), and these rates were similar among men and women.

Patients with IBD and a mood/anxiety disorder also were more likely to use benzodiazepines and Z-drugs and to be continuous users than were those without a mood/anxiety disorder.
 

Mental health and IBD go hand in hand

“The results are not very surprising, but they highlight the importance of mental health and mood disturbances in patients with IBD,” Ashwin Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, with Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

“It is important for treating physicians to be aware of the important mental health implications of IBD diagnosis and disease activity, to screen patients for these disturbances, and to institute early effective interventions,” Dr. Ananthakrishnan said.

Also offering perspective, Laurie Keefer, PhD, academic health psychologist and director of psychobehavioral research within the division of gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said that she is “concerned but not surprised” by the results of this study.

“One in three patients with IBD meets criteria for an anxiety disorder,” Dr. Keefer told this news organization.

And with the ongoing mental health crisis and shortage of mental health providers, “gastroenterologists are, unfortunately, in the position where they may have to manage these issues,” she said.

Dr. Keefer noted that when patients are first diagnosed with IBD, they will likely be on prednisone, and “an antidote” for the side effects of prednisone are benzodiazepines and sleeping medications because prednisone itself causes insomnia. “However, that’s really just a band-aid,” she said.

A major concern, said Dr. Keefer, is that young men and women who are diagnosed with IBD in their 20s may start using these drugs and become reliant on them.

“People do build up a tolerance to these drugs, so they need more and more to receive the same effect,” she said.

A better approach is to figure out why patients are so anxious and teach them skills to manage their anxiety and sleep problems so that they’re not dependent on these drugs, Dr. Keefer said.

“There are behavioral strategies that can help. These are harder to do, and they’re not a quick fix. However, they are skills you can learn in your 20s and so when you have an IBD flare at 50, you have the skills to deal with it,” she said.

“We just have to be a little more proactive in really encouraging patients to learn disease management skills,” Dr. Keefer added.

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Crohn’s and Colitis Canada. Dr. Bernstein has disclosed relationships with AbbVie Canada, Amgen Canada, Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada, Roche Canada, Janssen Canada, Sandoz Canada, Takeda and Takeda Canada, Pfizer Canada, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, and Medtronic Canada. Dr. Ananthakrishnan and Dr. Keefer report no relevant financial relationships.

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